Search for: "Hazen v. Hazen" Results 1 - 20 of 43
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2016, 7:30 am by Daily Record Staff
Administrative law — Real property — Merger of lots This appeal arises out of a dispute concerning two contiguous residential lots owned by appellee Crystal Creek Properties, LLC (“Crystal Creek”), adjacent to a lot owned by Susan Hazen and her son Joshua Hazen, appellants (“the Hazens”). [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 2:16 pm by Alyson Carney
The students argued the merits of a fictitious case Brendan Smith v. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 7:47 am
Haberman successfully took a leading manufacturer of baby goods Jackel International to court for patent infringement (Haberman v Jackel International [1999] FSR 683). [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 4:59 am
Supreme Court denied Hazen’s petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.The Appellate Division explained that Hazen sought to compel the removal of the letters to which she objected from her file, which was an action in the nature of mandamus.However, said the court, placing the letters in her personnel file and deciding whether or not to remove then when Hazen demand their being expunged, are essentially discretionary actions. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 8:00 pm
The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, relied heavily on the Court's 1993 ruling in Hazen Paper Co. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 4:00 am
” Noting that the JHO found that Employee's conduct was only partially attributable to the disorders he claimed to suffer, the Appellate Division said that “the law does not immunize disabled employees from discipline or discharge for incidents of misconduct in the workplace,” citing Hazen v Hill Bettz and Nash, 92 AD3d 162, leave to appeal denied, 19 NY3d 812. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 12:01 am by John Diekman
Practice point: The New York State Human Rights Law does not immunize disabled employees from discipline or discharge for misconduct in the workplace.Student note: EEOC Guideline No. 30 specifically provides that an employer may discipline an individual with a disability for violating a workplace conduct standard which is job-related and consistent with business necessity.Case: Hazen v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 pm by Alyson Carney
The students argued the merits of a fictitious case Brendan Smith v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:38 am
” The court held that “An employment decision motivated by pension costs, even when strongly correlated with age, is not an ADEA violation,’ citing Hazen Paper v. [read post]