Search for: "Strong v. State" Results 121 - 140 of 16,333
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
2 May 2024, 1:03 pm
Justice Corrigan authors a powerful opinion that holds that it's not permissible for the police to conduct a Terry stop just because someone's in a high crime area and pretending to tie his shoe behind a car in order to avoid the police, and Justice Evan authors an equally powerful concurrence (joined by a majority of the Court) that highlights the racial implications of a rule that assumes that the "normal" response to a police encounter is to welcome and/or consent to… [read post]
1 May 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
”  The Court’s decision in Roe v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
 The opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts adopted an equal state sovereignty principle requiring Congress to have a strong reason to treat different states differently when exercising its power to enforce the 15th Amendment through, according to the text, “appropriate legislation. [read post]
1 May 2024, 3:31 am by Alessandro Cerri
 The Board of Appeal found that all necessary conditions had been satisfied for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply in this case, taking into account (amongst other factors) the evidence which had been submitted by Patou demonstrating the strong reputation enjoyed by the mark JOY in a substantial part of the European Union, for perfumery and fragrances in Class 3.Kneipp appealed to the Court. [read post]