Search for: "Dues v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 44,335
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2014, 6:19 am
Since she was not "terminated" under Connecticut law, she does not have a due process claim.The case is Mirabilio v. [read post]
24 Sep 2008, 10:17 pm
In People v Fredrick, 2008 NY Slip Op 06056 [4th Dept 7/3/08] [here] the Fourth Department not only reversed a conviction due to unobjected to prosecutorial misconduct, but in doing so the Court expressly refused to consider whether the misconduct contributed to the verdict. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 10:48 am
See Cone v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 12:24 pm
In 1979, the United States Supreme Court in Addington v Texas held that constitutional due process required the government to prove two statutory preconditions by clear and convincing evidence before a court could commit an individual to a mental institution: (1) that the person sought to be committed is mentally ill; and (2) that such person requires hospitalization for his own welfare and protection of others. [read post]
20 Aug 2021, 11:04 am
Also unresolved is whether foreign nations and their state-owned enterprises are “persons” entitled to due process at all, an issue noted by several justices at oral argument in Opati v. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 11:04 am
The court of appeals held last month in State v. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 11:04 am
The court of appeals held last month in State v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 9:29 am
Responses are due at 4 p.m. today in separate cases involving the state house and the state senate maps (applications 11A520 and 11A521, respectively). [read post]
28 May 2008, 1:49 am
Due process and negotiated agreementsCiambriello v Nassau County, CA2, 01-7556 The Ciambriello case involves a situation not uncommon in labor relations: a union filing a grievance on behalf certain members in the negotiating unit that adversely affects other members in the same unit. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 2:57 am
June 18, 2009), that a prisoner has no procedural or a substantive federal due process right to gain post-conviction access to forensic evidence in the state's possession in order to subject it to DNA testing. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 11:54 am
Moreover, this question already was addressed in United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
See State v. [read post]
13 Feb 2010, 1:32 pm
State v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 8:41 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to grant a motion to dismiss Knox v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:03 pm
State v. [read post]
22 Aug 2021, 7:07 am
Pursuant to Brady v. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 11:52 am
Supreme Court ruled, in Communications Workers of America v. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 12:12 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 7:28 am
Or it might not.The case is Manza v. [read post]
