Search for: "State v. Taylor"
Results 1881 - 1900
of 3,088
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
** * The decision notes that City "presented ample evidence that it passed the 2010 Ordinance only after pursuing a range of measures to increase revenue and cut expenses" and although New York law permitted the City to require the appellants to contribute up to 50 percent of the premium amount, the 2010 Ordinance required the Retirees to contribute substantially less.** In McDonald PBA v City of Geneva, Ct. of Appeals, 92 N.Y.2d 326, the Court of Appeals ruled that in… [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 6:57 am
Eliot Kim summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jam v. [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 9:08 am
Claire Methven O'Brien and I are delighted to announce that Human Rights Due Diligence Laws: From Due Diligence Standards to New Legal Norms will be published by Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group) in their Globalization: Law and Policy Series. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 8:25 am
But if Hobbs doesn't win, Democratic voters would rather have Taylor Robson than Lake, and given that almost half Republican voters also preferred Taylor Robson to Lake, it seems undoubtedly true that a majority of all the state's voters would want Taylor Robson rather than Lake to become the state's governor. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 5:55 am
It does to Judge Kleinfeld (left) in a new categorical analysis decision, United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 3:23 am
Circuit case, Taylor v. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 10:20 am
In Washington v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 2:17 pm
Court of Appeals decision (Storch v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 6:48 pm
It was in that context that Carswell, J., stated: Therefore, section 211 of the Surrogate's Court Act is not applicable to or binding upon the United States. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 7:40 pm
It was in that context that Carswell, J., stated: Therefore, section 211 of the Surrogate's Court Act is not applicable to or binding upon the United States. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 9:05 pm
Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm
Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in the case of Samantar v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 10:00 pm
See Naranjo v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 8:05 pm
State v. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:00 am
Commissioners for HMRC v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc (Scotland), heard 11 Apr 2018. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 6:35 am
See Taylor v. [read post]
2 Aug 2020, 4:58 am
Some state statutes limited the coverage for workers’ compensation to diseases that manifested within a certain time window during and after employment. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 9:14 am
But 28 years ago in Taylor v. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 12:22 am
In addition to the Illinois patients, there are patients in other states, but the Illinois officials did not report what states are involved. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 7:05 pm
Taylor to apply the automatic reversal rule in Holloway v. [read post]
