Search for: "Whalen v. Whalen"
Results 121 - 140
of 193
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
King with nary a mention of Whalen and Cinque or even acknowledging the prior split of authority. [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 1:35 pm
People v. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
"FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 252; see Buffalo News, Inc. v Buffalo Enterprise Dev. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
” In addition, this was the law before the recent amendments which added to R. 20’s dispositive potential: see Whalen et al. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 11:26 am
Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2009), Whalen v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 7:25 am
It is hard to believe that nearly five months have passed since the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 10:58 am
Such question presumptively violated a constitutional right to privacy discussed by the Supreme Court in Whalen v. [read post]
15 Jun 2019, 12:21 am
School [*3][Perfetto & Whalen Constr. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 7:59 am
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Whalen v. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 10:00 pm
Why is a picture of a shark on this post? [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 8:00 am
Rogers v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 4:37 am
On Saturday, November 28, C-Span Radio will air the first oral argument in Fisher v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
"FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 252; see Buffalo News, Inc. v Buffalo Enterprise Dev. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 1:22 pm
It recalled the extensive commentary by Justice Kennedy, in the Court’s last same-sex marriage decision (United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 3:26 am
"It was error to dismiss the first cause of action merely because plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration he seeks (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]); the proper course is to declare in favor of defendants (see Holliswood Care Ctr. v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1004 [1983]; Mongelli v Sharp, 140 AD2d 273 [1988]). [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 6:02 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 8:03 am
In Whalen v. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 5:31 am
“Prejudice may be found where a party has incurred some change in position or hindrance in the preparation of its case which could have been avoided had the original pleading contained the proposed amendment” (Whalen v Kawasaki Motors Corp. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 7:27 am
For an earlier federal district court motion pointing out such hallucinated citations in another case, which I hadn't seen mentioned anywhere before and which I just learned about Friday, see Whalen v. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 8:00 am
See Whalen v. [read post]
