Search for: "Friedman v. Division of Health"
Results 1 - 20
of 39
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2020, 6:31 am
Last year, in State v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 4:31 am
Moreover, the record does not show that plaintiff was incapable of protecting her legal rights despite her mental health diagnosis (see Burgos v City of New York, 294 AD2d 177, 178 [1st Dept 2002]). [read post]
7 Sep 2020, 8:15 am
The post State v. [read post]
Court Tentatively Decides That State Law Preempts Proposed San Francisco Ban on Circumcision of Boys
28 Jul 2011, 9:15 am
City of San Diego v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 1:37 pm
In Gittel v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 6:37 pm
The recently decided NJ Supreme Court case of State v. [read post]
27 Dec 2021, 12:37 am
Court of Appeals in Friedman v Revenue Management, Inc. employed the Burford abstention doctrine to close the courthouse door to judicial dissolution proceedings even where diversity jurisdiction is present. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 1:11 pm
In State v. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 8:29 am
A divided First Department decision ensued with Justice Catterson doing a lengthy analysis of the difference in Friedman v. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 10:48 pm
American Journal of Public Health, 80(9): 1075-1079 [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:00 am
Correspondence exchanged between public officers and agencies and private consultants are within the ambit of the Freedom of Information LawRauh v de Blasio, 2018 NY Slip Op 03115, Appellate Division, First DepartmentThe editor of NYPPL has consistently opined that:1. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm
v=j0pl_FXt0eMWilliam F. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm
v=j0pl_FXt0eMWilliam F. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:12 pm
Dukes, and Turner v. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 2:19 pm
As a third reason for the application of the statutory percentage to the total parental income, is that courts, including the Appellate Division, Second Department, have, in fact, routinely applied the statutory formula to combined parental income as high as and greater than $200,000 (see Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, § 16.34, at 679; compare Matter of Brim v. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 1:00 pm
Reingold, MD Professor of Epidemiology University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Dharam V. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 5:05 am
CAR and Ball v. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 11:48 am
He cited two court decisions touching on this issue — Chrysler Corp and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 1981 decision in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co v Friedman (24 EPD ¶31,457). [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 4:58 pm
Shannon has served on the NCAA Division I Legislative Committee for the last two years. [read post]
23 May 2016, 9:01 pm
In an early case, Willingham v. [read post]
