Search for: "Schwartz v Schwartz" Results 1081 - 1100 of 1,648
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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]
29 Jun 2012, 4:44 am by Jon Hyman
The Court handed down its opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 6:15 am by Rachel Sachs
” Wednesday’s oral argument in Shelby County v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 4:30 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
 [*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]
24 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Schwartz, University of California, Berkeley – School of Law. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
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]