Search for: "Franks v. State" Results 121 - 140 of 4,659
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Matter of Lockwood v County of Suffolk 2023 NY Slip Op 04316 Decided on August 16, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Matter of Lockwood v County of Suffolk 2023 NY Slip Op 04316 Decided on August 16, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am by Guest Author
This paper is much narrower—Sunstein is really unpacking some of the conservative SCOTUS bloc’s internal debates about the MQD in Biden v. [read post]
8 Aug 2023, 12:26 am by Frank Cranmer
The prohibition came before Queensland’s State Court of Appeal in Athwal v State of Queensland  [2023] QCA 156, in which Ms Kamaljit Kaur Athwal argued that the ban was discriminatory. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 9:05 pm by Scott Burris
Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 4:40 am by SHG
Giving full effect to the right to free speech in a pluralistic democratic society requires acknowledging and addressing the ways in which those who are members of “discrete and insular minorities,” United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 7:34 am by Zak Gowen
Most banks in the country do not service cannabis companies as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level despite several states legalizing its medicinal and recreational use. . . . [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 11:51 pm by Frank Cranmer
Cite this article as: Frank Cranmer, "Asylum and fear of religious persecution in India: SSHD v Lata" in Law & Religion UK, 24 July 2023, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2023/07/24/asylum-and-fear-of-religious-persecution-in-india-sshd-v-lata/. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 5:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice because the plaintiff’s allegation that the restaurant would have had increased profits but for the defendants’ alleged malpractice is [*2]conclusory and speculative (see York v Frank, 209 AD3d at 807; Denisco v Uysal, 195 AD3d at 991). [read post]