Search for: "STATE v B J J J"
Results 1761 - 1780
of 6,787
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2011, 1:41 am
Filing a timely notice for disability retirement benefits critical to eligibility for such benefitsWilson v NYSERS, 288 AD2d 602 Theodore J. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 10:31 am
Sonali B. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 12:30 pm
See United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 11:46 pm
A Sixth Circuit panel held last week, in Gary B. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 11:09 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a mixed decision for Fannie & Freddie shareholders in Bhatti v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 3:55 pm
§ 381.986(1)(j)(5)(b). [read post]
28 May 2012, 1:46 pm
The second began in 2005, when the Supreme Court overturned the de novo standard on constitutional grounds in United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 4:08 pm
Reproductive choice in the hands of the state: the right to abortion under the European Convention on Human Rights in light of A,B & C v. [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 2:50 am
Case Name: Roeschlein v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:04 pm
” J. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 7:49 am
This is what faced Penwith DC and Restormel BC, in which anybody who has been to Penzance, St Austell or the Eden Project will know has a plenitude of b&b accommodation. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 7:49 am
This is what faced Penwith DC and Restormel BC, in which anybody who has been to Penzance, St Austell or the Eden Project will know has a plenitude of b&b accommodation. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 12:42 pm
S. 692, 739–742 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Jesner v. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 1:12 pm
S. 103 , and United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 12:29 am
Richards LJ stated (at [69]) that he would adopt a 'similar approach in relation to the meaning of the relevant exlcusion' as Kenneth Parker J. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 5:50 pm
John B. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2007, 11:48 am
James C. and Pamela J. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Applying the lenient notice-pleading standard afforded to discrimination claims (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]), plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to race discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) (Executive Law § 296) and New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107). [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Applying the lenient notice-pleading standard afforded to discrimination claims (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]), plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to race discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) (Executive Law § 296) and New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107). [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 10:01 pm
") THE STATE OF TEXAS v. [read post]