Search for: "CARR v. NEW YORK" Results 141 - 160 of 165
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 May 2010, 4:51 am by Jeff Gamso
  And, of course, even that rule doesn't apply when the "public safety exception" of New York v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 7:45 pm by Adam Thierer
” It touches on many of the themes I’ve discussed here in my essays on techno-panics, fears about information overload, and the broader optimists v. pessimist battle throughout history regarding the impact of new technologies on culture, life and learning. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 11:30 am by Keith Donoghue
The Court did not pause to mention a challenge pending before the Supreme Court, Carr v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 6:06 am
Termination resulting from the loss or expiration of a license required to lawfully perform the duties of the position does not constitute disciplineMatter of Carr v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2010 NY Slip Op 00771, Decided on February 4, 2010, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentJames Carr, a New York State Department of Transportation Highway Maintenance Worker I, was required to possess a valid commercial driver’s license… [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 1:35 pm by Anna Christensen
City of New York and Briscoe v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 6:00 am by Beck, et al.
Dec. 30, 2009) (applying New York law); Money v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 2:18 am
Having control of a significant amount of the content being produced would give Comcast the freedom and power to experiment with how to best deliver its programs. [39] The union would also allow for Comcast's enhanced utilization of the internet and allow both companies to benefit from Comcast's efforts to reach additional platforms. [40] The combination of the leading and third largest online video sites, Hulu and Comcast's Fancast, could boost the availability of media content on… [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 4:54 am
  The New York Times (AP) reports on other cases granted cert. that escaped the limelight: here, on Migliaccio v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
Plaintiffs say that defendants should not be allowed to do this because, despite what the statute says, Congress couldn't have meant to authorize pre-service removal before a plaintiff even has an opportunity to effect service.This has been happening a lot in drug/device cases originally filed in New Jersey because: (1) a lot of big drug/device companies have their headquarters in New Jersey, and (2) a lot of plaintiffs' lawyers view New Jersey state courts and… [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 7:04 am
  Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 8:15 pm
The Chicago hearing is the commission's fourth, after forums in Atlanta, Stanford, Calif., and New York. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 11:18 pm
  Ian Boyko, Canadian Federation of Students Expand fair dealing in line with the case of CHH v. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 2:33 pm
: (IPRoo), Review of National Innovation System – Key points for corporate counsel: (Mallesons Stephen Jaques), Review of National Innovation System recommends creative commons: (creativecommons.org), Review of Innovation System released: (IP Menu News), What [right]’s in a [business] name: Westpac Banking Corporation v McMillan & Melbas On The Park Pty Ltd (formerly Credit Systems Australia Pty Ltd): (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog), Senator Kim… [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 10:13 pm
  Grant of Motion to Stay of North Carolina action in favor of a subsequently filed New York lawsuit. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 7:55 am
Judge Modifies Matrimonial Part Rules on Interim Counsel New York Law Journal Attorneys seeking pendente lite counsel fees in Part 18 of Nassau County's Matrimonial Center must orally argue their case, a New York judge has ruled, "to facilitate a prompt determination by the court. [read post]
12 May 2008, 6:06 pm
New York residents, an alleged New York corporation (which doesn't show up in the NYS Department of State's Corporation and Business Entity Database), a Maryland accident, and non-appearances by the New York defendants in a New York action. [read post]