Search for: "State v. T. B." Results 161 - 180 of 18,484
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Aug 2024, 9:08 am
Corp., 883 F.2d 1092, 1099 (1st Cir. 1989) 8 B & E Convalescent Ctr. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
The Proposed Rule states that the FDIC has seen a correlation between brokered deposits and an increased “probability of failure and higher losses to the DIF upon failure. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 6:57 am by Bernard Bell
United States, 295 U.S. 602, 628-29 (1935)(limiting the holding in Myers v. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Luongo v Records Access Officer, 161 AD3d at 1080, the Appellate Division opined that "[t]he standard of review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an agency's denial of a FOIL request is much more stringent than the lenient standard generally applicable to CPLR article 78 review of agency actions".While the Police Department denied Plaintiff's request for records of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, relying, in part on the privacy… [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Luongo v Records Access Officer, 161 AD3d at 1080, the Appellate Division opined that "[t]he standard of review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an agency's denial of a FOIL request is much more stringent than the lenient standard generally applicable to CPLR article 78 review of agency actions".While the Police Department denied Plaintiff's request for records of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, relying, in part on the privacy… [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 5:43 pm by John Floyd
”   In May 2022, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) confronted a contentious case, State v. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 12:43 pm by John Floyd
” In May 2022, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) confronted a contentious case, State v. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 10:22 am by Giles Peaker
An example would be where the landlord gets the year wrong, as in Pease v Carter (where a notice of possession proceedings served on 7th November 2018 stated that court proceedings would not begin until after 26th November 2017, an obvious typographical error). [read post]