Search for: "Doe v. the Governor" Results 21 - 40 of 3,791
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2007, 3:12 pm
The North Carolina Court of Appeal has held that the state's public records act does not apply to applications for clemency in News and Observer Publishing Co. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 9:31 pm
(To give only one example, in 2000, in U.S. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 6:51 am by Jon
Supreme Court precedent declaring an unfunded mandate unconstitutional, Printz v. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 7:56 am by Seth Jaffe
  What would the Court do if Colorado appeared on both sides of the V? [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
[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 by Public Employment Law Press
[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 by Public Employment Law Press
[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 by Public Employment Law Press
[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]
22 Sep 2009, 11:00 am
In assessing the likelihood of plaintiff's success upon the merits (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]), the Appellate Division held that "the Governor's purported appointment of Mr. [read post]