Search for: "STATE v. DANIEL" Results 1861 - 1880 of 4,974
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jul 2024, 5:13 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) because he failed to state a cause of action (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). [read post]
30 Aug 2008, 4:58 pm
§ 524(a) makes a state-court judgment void ab initio when entered against a debtor whose dischargeable debts had been discharged, or whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine compels federal courts to respect the state-court judgment. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
 A Witness Can Change Their Testimony on an Errata Sheet After a DepositionBy Daniel E. [read post]
20 May 2014, 4:39 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday the Court issued its decision in the copyright case Petrella v. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:04 am by Walter Olson
Still in play is the state’s unique Martin Act, which allows finding fraud without proof of intent [Nicholas Kusnetz, Inside Climate News] Ninth Circuit panel hears “children’s” climate case, Juliana v. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 2:54 am by Walter Olson
” [Daniel Fisher on dismissal of San Francisco, Oakland cases] Rhode Island files first state lawsuit, cheered by mass tort veteran Sen. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:10 pm by Erin Miller
Below is the first essay for our thirty-day series on John Paul Stevens, by Daniel A. [read post]
23 Apr 2025, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Moreover, "[u]nder settled principles, the doctrine of estoppel will not provide eligibility [to retirement benefits] where by statute a person clearly does not qualify" (Matter of Price v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 107 AD3d 1212, 1216 [3d Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Schuyler v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 158 AD3d 909, 912 [3d… [read post]
23 Apr 2025, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Moreover, "[u]nder settled principles, the doctrine of estoppel will not provide eligibility [to retirement benefits] where by statute a person clearly does not qualify" (Matter of Price v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 107 AD3d 1212, 1216 [3d Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Schuyler v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 158 AD3d 909, 912 [3d… [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 5:38 am
Following up on its story July 17th (see this ILB entry) on Monday's Court of Appeals decision in Anita Stuller, et al v. [read post]