Search for: "John Stoll"
Results 121 - 125
of 125
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
At the outset, this Court notes that the advisory opinions of the Committee on Open Government (which were inconsistent here and upon which both sides thus rely to various extents) are “neither binding upon the agency nor entitled to greater deference in an article 78 proceeding than is the construction of the agency” itself (John P. v Whalen, 54 NY2d 89, 96 [1981]; see Buffalo News v Buffalo Enter. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
Judicial Screening Committee, 18 AD3d 1100, 1101 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).At the outset, this Court notes that the advisory opinions of the Committee on Open Government (which were inconsistent here and upon which both sides thus rely to various extents) are "neither binding upon the agency nor entitled to greater deference in an article 78 proceeding than is the construction of the agency" itself (Matter of John P. v Whalen, 54 NY2d 89, 96 [1981]; see Matter… [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 7:41 pm
In 1991, Peter Huber, discussing traumatic cancer claims, wrote: “After years of floundering in the junk science morass of traumatic cancer, judges slowly abandoned sequence-of-events logic, turned away from the sympathetic speculations of family doctors, and struggled on to the higher and firmer ground of epidemiology and medical science. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm
Attorney John Kacavas. [read post]
