Search for: "TOWNING v. STATE" Results 1721 - 1740 of 5,890
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2018, 6:30 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
A state appellate court has reinstated a verdict in favor of a sightless woman who was forced to resign her health club membership after it rescinded an accommodation that allowed her to use exercise equipment.The case, Reveyoso v. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 10:00 pm by Sever | Storey
If your town, borough, city, or state has a pending project, you may soon face a difficult decision: To sell or not? [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 11:29 am by Brian Sutherland
You might be aware that the President of the United States has a Twitter account. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 11:29 am by Brian Sutherland
You might be aware that the President of the United States has a Twitter account. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 4:18 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
[FN2] Given the [*3]absence of detailed facts, the legal malpractice cause of action should have been dismissed (see Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 AD3d 908, 910 [2016]; Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 126 AD3d at 1185-1186; Kreamer v Town of Oxford, 96 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2012]; compare Soule v Lozada, 232 AD2d 825, 825 [1996]). [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 1:13 pm by Victoria Clark
Robert Chesney and Steve Vladeck reviewed war powers, Doe v. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 10:15 am by Public Employment Law Press
Distinguishing between an individual's "domicile" and his or her "residence"Campaniello v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals Trib., 2018 NY Slip Op 03400, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentFrom time to time an applicant for public employment or an employee is required to be "domiciled"* with the physical jurisdiction of the employer. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 4:35 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
[FN2] Given the [*3]absence of detailed facts, the legal malpractice cause of action should have been dismissed (see Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 AD3d 908, 910 [2016]; Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 126 AD3d at 1185-1186; Kreamer v Town of Oxford, 96 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2012]; compare Soule v Lozada, 232 AD2d 825, 825 [1996]). [read post]