Search for: "State v. Ortiz"
Results 101 - 120
of 581
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2018, 4:32 am
A contract violating Section 4 78 is illegal “and under our settled rules [New York courts] refuse to aid in it but leave the parties where they are” (Spivak, 16 NY2d at 168, citing McConnell v Commonwealth Pictures Corp., 7 NY2d 465 [1960]; see also El Gamayel v Seaman, 72 NY2d 701, 705 [1988] [“As a matter of public policy, a contract to provide services in violation of [Judiciary Law§ 478] is unenforceable in our state… [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 12:04 pm
Holder, Jr. authorized the government to seek the death penalty in the case of United States v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 8:43 am
Ortiz, 16 Ill.App.3d 13 (1st Dist. 1973). [read post]
31 May 2017, 9:45 am
"even the 'good hombres' are not safe"Also in today's DJ see 9th Circuit Judge Blasts Trump Administration Immigration Policy, about Judge Reinhardt's concurrence in Ortiz v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:51 am
See, e.g., Ortiz-Zape v. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 7:29 pm
Hughes-Ortiz (Mass. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 3:45 am
Ortiz-Marquez, holding that dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which limits prisoners’ ability to file lawsuits without paying the filing fees. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 10:50 am
Ortiz v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 5:38 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:51 am
The Feres Doctrine was articulated in Feres v. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 9:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 6:28 am
Thompson, Ortiz v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 4:30 am
Ortiz v. [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 7:11 am
That procedural tactic was foreclosed by the Supreme Court in Ortiz v. [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 8:17 am
Facts: This case (Martinez et al v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:51 am
The Feres Doctrine was articulated in Feres v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:51 am
The Feres Doctrine was articulated in Feres v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:51 am
The Feres Doctrine was articulated in Feres v. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 1:52 pm
Carr v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:30 am
Section 75 provides that certain civil servants "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges. [read post]
