Search for: "Human v. State"
Results 1601 - 1620
of 19,092
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2021, 3:48 am
It therefore contends that section 12(1) should be construed, pursuant to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and/or common law principles, as allowing the court to make alternative directions as to service in exceptional circumstances. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:33 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just issued its opinion in Kiobel v. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 10:55 pm
In Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church v. [read post]
7 Jan 2007, 5:40 pm
Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services filed its Answer in RxUSA Wholesale, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 5:17 am
United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
Plaintiff, a former detective with the New York City Police Department [NYPD], commenced this action against the defendants [Defendants] alleging a number of tort claims and claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and alleged that Defendants' conduct forced him to retire from the NYPD.Citing General Municipal Law §50-e and Umeh v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
Plaintiff, a former detective with the New York City Police Department [NYPD], commenced this action against the defendants [Defendants] alleging a number of tort claims and claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and alleged that Defendants' conduct forced him to retire from the NYPD.Citing General Municipal Law §50-e and Umeh v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 10:29 pm
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985); 6th CIR. [read post]
5 Jun 2008, 10:47 am
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985); 6th CIR. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed a New York State Supreme Court's ruling granting the City of New York's motion to [1] dismiss racial discrimination claims alleged by Plaintiffs pursuant to the New York State and City Human Rights Laws and [2] the hostile work environment claim Plaintiffs alleged pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law which the Plaintiffs had asserted against the City of New York and a named defendant.Citing Harrington… [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed a New York State Supreme Court's ruling granting the City of New York's motion to [1] dismiss racial discrimination claims alleged by Plaintiffs pursuant to the New York State and City Human Rights Laws and [2] the hostile work environment claim Plaintiffs alleged pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law which the Plaintiffs had asserted against the City of New York and a named defendant.Citing Harrington… [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 4:55 pm
With its attention focussed on the 2004 Directive, the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Tribunal ruled in LC v Secretary of State for the Home Department that, despite having been in the UK for 19 years, Chindamo had “resided” in the UK within the meaning of the Directive for less than 10 years, as 10 of those years had been spent in prison. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 4:10 am
Supreme Court in Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 4:00 am
In Weiland v. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 6:18 am
In Graziadio v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 4:05 pm
In the case of Sekmadienis v Lithuania ([2018] ECHR 112) the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a decision to fine a clothing company for the display of adverts referring to “Jesus” and “Mary” was a violation of Article 10. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 8:26 pm
Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207, 216-217 [1991]; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 147 [1974]).The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_01252.htm [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 12:05 pm
Diamond v. [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
In Dred Scott v. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 2:30 am
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal. [read post]
