Search for: "U. S. v. Force" Results 1221 - 1240 of 1,711
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2018, 3:46 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The Bareburger Litigation In Stavroulakis v Pelakanos, 2018 NY Slip Op 50180(U) [Sup Ct NY County Feb 13, 2018], Bareburger had no written shareholders agreement. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm by INFORRM
Start-ups forced to build them won’t be able to afford it, or will build lousy ones with high error rates. [read post]
16 Dec 2024, 1:44 am by INFORRM
The Brett Wilson Media and Communication Law Blog has an article marking a decade since the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
It was this nationalistic Hamiltonian mode that found its way into the United States Reports through Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion for the Court in McCulloch v. [read post]
9 May 2018, 4:35 pm by Aurora Barnes
§ 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery has as an element “the use … of physical force against the person or property of another,” 18 U.S.C. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]