Search for: "Human v. State"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 19,108
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 3:04 am
Employee disciplined for disruptive behavior alleges charges were based on the employer's perception of a disabilityRobinson v NYS Division of Human Rights, 277 AD2d 76The appointing authority orders an employee who is exhibiting disruptive behavior to report for a drug test or for a physiological evaluation. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 1:45 pm
Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. [read post]
12 May 2012, 5:15 am
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 A.C. 167 and Pinnock adopted. [read post]
12 May 2012, 5:15 am
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 A.C. 167 and Pinnock adopted. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 4:25 pm
In Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Service ([2016] EWHC 1926 (QB)), a Soviet dissident resident in England, was suing the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), the principal public prosecuting authority in England and Wales, for libel, misfeasance in public office, and breach of the Human Rights Act concerning a press release announcing that he was to be prosecuted for a number of criminal offences. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 11:01 am
These are the kinds of judgments reserved to the states, and nothing in the FMIA requires states to make them on a species-wide basis or not at all. [read post]
26 Aug 2024, 6:39 am
To use United States v. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 12:00 am
On April 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 11:04 am
Stitt and the State of Oklahoma (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 2:55 pm
Abouselman (Water Rights)United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 2:15 am
But in this connection, let us turn to the case of Hirst v United Kingdom No2 (the prisoner voting case). [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
In Sistersong Women of Reproductive Justice Collective v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 12:51 pm
In United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 2:54 pm
(Indian Child Welfare Act, termination of parental rights) * United States Federal Trial Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/2014dct.htmlCases featured: Smith v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 11:52 am
” In addressing this issue, Eady J referred to Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, where the House of Lords had drawn a distinction between state secrets and confidential information relating to an individual’s private life. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 5:58 am
Mills, “If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 9:48 am
I became aware of the Against Equality collective as I was writing a piece on “Dignity, Legal Pluralism, and Same-Sex Marriage,” in which I argued that mainstream gay and lesbian organizations (such as Human Rights Campaign, but many others as well) were missing out on real opportunities afforded by—as these organizations and supportive courts pejoratively characterized them—‘separate but equal’ relationship-recognition schemes in states… [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 5:54 pm
As plaintiff did not sue under the state or federal anti-discrimination laws, the Second Circuit (Chin, Lohier and Droney) only resolves this case under the City Human Rights Law. [read post]
