Search for: "Disciplinary Counsel v. Ranke"
Results 1 - 20
of 61
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2012, 3:40 am
A police force is a semi-military organization and the appointing authority has “great leeway” is determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty Smeraldo v Rater, 55 AD3d 1298 Timothy J. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 11:15 am
Further, said the court, "the record establishes that [Smeraldo] has a prior disciplinary record, including a 30-day suspension and a demotion in rank that occurred less than one year prior to the present offense. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 11:22 am
Briefly, here’s why the ABA is fine with the status quo: Despite extensive outreach seeking feedback from bar associations, disciplinary counsel and consumer groups, little input was received. [read post]
12 Feb 2008, 10:47 am
A new decision is out from CAAF today: United States v. [read post]
26 Dec 2010, 8:57 am
One of the less-than-pleasant events during 2010 was the VWAP fiasco in United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 10:00 pm
Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondent. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 10:00 pm
Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondent. [read post]
5 May 2009, 12:23 pm
Casale v. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 10:30 am
” In Davis v. [read post]
20 Oct 2021, 12:13 pm
The authority to determine licensing and disciplinary matters typically resides, in the end, with the highest court in a state. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 3:12 pm
" Marbury v. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 6:00 am
Boucher, [1955] S.C.R. 16, adopted by the unanimous SCC in R. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 8:49 pm
Cioca v. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 1:23 pm
The case is Bauer v. [read post]
1 Jun 2006, 6:15 am
Disciplinary Counsel v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 5:08 pm
Matheny v. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 8:20 am
Sullivan & Cromwell and Sullivan & Cromwell v. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 6:28 am
From Chasnoff v. [read post]
14 Oct 2007, 9:17 am
(The full text of the decision in Humig v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 8:07 am
Article 37 of the UCMJ prohibits such commanders from using their rank and position to unduly influence the course of the trial, the witnesses or the accused, the judge or panel members, and the prosecutor and defense counsel. [read post]
