Search for: "Schwartz v. Schwartz"
Results 1021 - 1040
of 1,538
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Nov 2019, 6:30 am
Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve applications for retirement benefits and the "determination must be upheld if [the] interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Schwartz v McCall, 300 AD2d 887, 888 [3d Dept 2002] [internal citations omitted]; accord Matter of O'Brien v DiNapoli, 116 AD3d 1124, 1125 [3d Dept… [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve applications for retirement benefits and the "determination must be upheld if [the] interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Schwartz v McCall, 300 AD2d 887, 888 [3d Dept 2002] [internal citations omitted]; accord Matter of O'Brien v DiNapoli, 116 AD3d 1124, 1125 [3d Dept… [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve applications for retirement benefits and the "determination must be upheld if [the] interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Schwartz v McCall, 300 AD2d 887, 888 [3d Dept 2002] [internal citations omitted]; accord Matter of O'Brien v DiNapoli, 116 AD3d 1124, 1125 [3d Dept… [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve applications for retirement benefits and the "determination must be upheld if [the] interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Schwartz v McCall, 300 AD2d 887, 888 [3d Dept 2002] [internal citations omitted]; accord Matter of O'Brien v DiNapoli, 116 AD3d 1124, 1125 [3d Dept… [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 6:15 am
” Wednesday’s oral argument in Shelby County v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 4:44 am
The Court handed down its opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 12:30 pm
” See Coba v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 4:30 am
[*3]Since the remaining allegations in the complaint were flatly refuted by the defendant’s documentary evidence, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint (see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 757-758; Weissman v Kessler, 78 AD3d 465, 466; Katebi v Fink, 51 AD3d 424, 425; Pacella v Whiteman Osterman &… [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 4:02 pm
In Capital v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 4:57 pm
Schwartz v. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
Schwartz, University of California, Berkeley – School of Law. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 6:00 am
Meyer v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 6:00 am
Meyer v. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 4:08 pm
In the case of Moran v Schwartz Publishing [2015] WASC 215 Kenneth Martin J struck out two paragraphs of the defence including prior publications relied on in mitigation of damage. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 10:59 am
The oral arguments this week in Biden v. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 12:28 pm
Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749, 770.) [read post]
4 Feb 2017, 5:33 am
And Quinta posted the Lawfare Podcast: "Goldsmith v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 7:35 am
Robins and in Rumsfeld v. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 1:36 pm
Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62, 98 (2009).] [read post]
