Search for: "State v. First Judicial Dist." Results 121 - 140 of 1,056
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jan 2022, 7:16 am
Efforts made by Chinese enterprises operating in the United States to comply with PRC state secrets laws can create difficulties in complying with US regulations and disclosure requirements. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 12:33 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The rationale for this position was first expressed in Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm by admin
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 145-46 (1997) (holding that an expert witness’s reliance on a study was misplaced when the subjects of the study “had been exposed to numerous potential carcinogens”) First Circuit Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Internat’l Pension Fund v. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 10:42 am by Russell Knight
Silva, 413 NE 2d 139 – Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist. 1980 Perhaps judicial notice could be taken that a different woman is not the other mother of a child. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 9:32 am by Eugene Volokh
Plaintiff alleges that on August 2, 2013, Defendant again became intoxicated, physically forced Plaintiff to leave their joint hotel room and stated that he wanted "20 men to rape" her. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Petkewicz v Allers, 137 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2016] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 34 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]). [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Petkewicz v Allers, 137 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2016] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 34 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]). [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:52 am by Eugene Volokh
This one is on why some courts view pseudonymity as burdening the judicial process; I'll have more soon on reasons that support pseudonymity. [read post]