Search for: "Doe v. Bd. of Elections"
Results 61 - 80
of 205
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jun 2014, 1:54 pm
Labor Relations Bd. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 6:23 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 6:10 pm
Bd. of Ed. (1968) would apply to First Amendment claims by government employees like Tucker. [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 6:45 am
United StatesJordahl v. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 4:31 am
J. with its two dissenting opinions, does not exactly clear up the issue. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 6:17 am
On the other hand, the statute does appear in the statutory chapter dealing with election campaigns, and was enacted as part of a election reform act, so maybe “political” here was intended to just refer to election campaigns. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 1:29 pm
Cir. 2020), and cites to several cases permitting federal officer removal for elected members of Congress, see Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 11:58 am
Koninklijke Philips Elects. [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
[FN1]Although those salaries are subject to change, CPLR 1001 does not speak of, and is not limited to, vested rights or interests (see Matter of Basha Kill Area Assn. v Town Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 302 AD2d 662, 664 [2003]; Matter of 27th St. [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
[FN1]Although those salaries are subject to change, CPLR 1001 does not speak of, and is not limited to, vested rights or interests (see Matter of Basha Kill Area Assn. v Town Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 302 AD2d 662, 664 [2003]; Matter of 27th St. [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
[FN1]Although those salaries are subject to change, CPLR 1001 does not speak of, and is not limited to, vested rights or interests (see Matter of Basha Kill Area Assn. v Town Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 302 AD2d 662, 664 [2003]; Matter of 27th St. [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
[FN1]Although those salaries are subject to change, CPLR 1001 does not speak of, and is not limited to, vested rights or interests (see Matter of Basha Kill Area Assn. v Town Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 302 AD2d 662, 664 [2003]; Matter of 27th St. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 12:55 am
In Baldassi & Others v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 11:54 am
Detroit Bd. of Education (1977). [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 2:03 pm
Harper v Virginia Bd. of Elections Even with the new amendment, states, like Virginia, continued their poll tax practices because the amendment did not specifically speak to state elections. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 10:19 am
Sys., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 1:30 pm
Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 10:38 am
”[10] It is justified by the federal Elections Clause power, aimed at protecting federal elections, and not by any Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause power.[11] Nor does it extend as far as the First Amendment does: It is limited to support or advocacy of the election of federal candidates, not speech on other matters. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:58 am
Canton v. [read post]
17 May 2022, 7:43 pm
BD. [read post]
