Search for: "N.Y. Supreme Court" Results 1301 - 1320 of 3,454
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2023, 3:46 pm by Steve Bainbridge
., the Delaware Supreme Court finally addressed the longstanding debate over the validity of the Blasius doctrine. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 11:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Sys. of State of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 00186, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentDavid Gandin commenced employment as a confidential law secretary to an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, at a salary grade of JG-531. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 7:17 am by Rachel, Law Clerk and Office Manager
Stanley Bernstein on formal caution over advertising B.C. polygamous leader seeks to quash charge | Globalnews.ca Quebec judge wouldn't hear case of woman wearing hijab - Montreal - CBC News A Prison, Infamous for Bloodshed, Faces a Reckoning as Guards Go on Trial The Phony Legal Attack on Health Care Rocker Gary Glitter sentenced to 16 years for sex abuse DC legalizes pot, ignores House Republicans Ontario court rejects attempt to blame articling… [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 6:44 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Supreme Court in 2006 created that distinction, and since plaintiff was speaking pursuant to his official job duties, there is no First Amendment claim. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 5:25 am
In so ruling the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s holding that Education Law §2560, which incorporates by reference General Municipal Law §50-k, and Education Law §3028, are not in conflict and should be read together and "applied harmoniously and consistently," citing Alweis v Evans, 69 NY2d 199. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 5:07 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Johnson v Watts 2023 NY Slip Op 32825(U) August 14, 2023 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 502133/2018 Judge: Peter P. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
Such was the ruling of Kings County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Accordingly, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "properly determined that [Plaintiff] was not entitled to the supplemental benefit after he attained [age 62]. [read post]