Justia Blawg Search - Law Blogs, Lawyer Blogs, Legal Blogs Directory & Search Engine

Indeed, the May 6 Letter objects specifically to the “ideological homogeneity” it attributes to Columbia’s faculty and administration and insists that the boycott will continue until there is “[v]iewpoint diversity on the faculty and across the administration—including the admissions office. [read post]

lennyesq - http://lennyesq.wordpress.com

"Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49; see D.M. v Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 220 AD3d 672). "Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d at 49; see R.B. v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 207 AD3d 607, 609).

17 Jun 2024, 11:00 am by Public Employment Law Press

"Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d at 49; see R.B. v Sewanhaka Cent. [read post]

New York Public Personnel Law - https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/

"Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49; see D.M. v Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 220 AD3d 672). "Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d at 49; see R.B. v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 207 AD3d 607, 609).

17 Jun 2024, 11:00 am by Public Employment Law Press

"Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d at 49; see R.B. v Sewanhaka Cent. [read post]

New York Public Personnel Law - https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/

Recent New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Outlines Confrontation Clause Fundamentals

17 Jun 2024, 7:59 am by James S. Friedman, LLC

In State v. [read post]

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog - http://www.newjerseycriminaldefenseattorney-blog.com/

On the duty to inform another party of the fact that the other party inadvertently disclosed documents... and more

17 Jun 2024, 7:57 am by Professor Alberto Bernabe

* When Lawyer A opens the file using the link, he or she discovers the link provides access to B's client's documents which were not expected to be disclosed and are likely to be considered confidential.This is what happened in a recent case in New York called Pursuit Credit Special Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. [read post]

Professional Responsibility Blog - https://bernabepr.blogspot.com/

Appellate Division held employee sufficiently alleged that, due to his race and/or gender, his sexual harassment complaint was not taken seriously or appropriately investigated by the employer and he was disciplined more harshly than other employees

17 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press

Crookendale v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]

New York Public Personnel Law - https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/

Appellate Division held employee sufficiently alleged that, due to his race and/or gender, his sexual harassment complaint was not taken seriously or appropriately investigated by the employer and he was disciplined more harshly than other employees

17 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press

Crookendale v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]

New York Public Personnel Law - https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/

HOMEOWNERS AREN’T REQUIRED TO INSPECT THEIR OWN HOMES

17 Jun 2024, 5:00 am

# # #DECISIONAMWP, Inc. v. [read post]

Real Estate Law Blog - http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/

Pro-Se Case Dismissed, Although CPLR 3211(a)(1) Dismissal is Without Prejudice

17 Jun 2024, 3:41 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone

Moreover, the complaint fails to allege fraud with any particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]; see Browne v Lyft, Inc., 219 AD3d 445, 447 [2d Dept 2023]; Shah v Mitra, 171 ADed 971, 976 [2d Dept 2019]). [read post]

New York Attorney Malpractice Blog - http://blog.bluestonelawfirm.com/

Court of Appeals Bolsters the Internal Affairs Doctrine, Takes a Stroll Through Scottish Fiduciary Law

17 Jun 2024, 3:37 am by Peter J. Sluka

The merger was negotiated while the entire sports betting industry held its breath; the Supreme Court was considering Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Assn, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) the case that allowed states to legalize sports gambling. [read post]

New York Business Divorce - http://www.nybusinessdivorce.com/

Cleary Gottlieb Discusses the Context for Analyzing Force Majeure Clauses in the UK

16 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding

Secondly, the court considered that, while no previous case has directly answered the question raised by the appeal, the cases of Bulman & Dickson v Fenwick & Co [1894] 1 QB 179 and Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1963] AC 691 provided strong implicit support for MUR’s case. [read post]

The CLS Blue Sky Blog - https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/

Supreme Court “Bump Stock” Case Reveals the Limits of Statutory Interpretation

16 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf

For example, Justice Sotomayor’s opinion for the Court last year in Dubin v. [read post]

Verdict - http://verdict.justia.com/

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Deference Squared and Miscellany

16 Jun 2024, 8:38 pm by Hyland Hunt

State Public Service Comm’n v. [read post]

Notice & Comment - https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/

Law and religion roundup – 16th June

16 Jun 2024, 12:23 am by Frank Cranmer

No right to assisted dying under the ECHR In the case of Dániel Karsai v Hungary [2024] ECHR No. [read post]