Search for: "MacE v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 51
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Nov 2007, 2:43 pm
District Court in Puerto Ricoheld such acts were protected state action and did not violate the journalists' First Amendment Rights. [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 3:33 am by Peter Mahler
Until last week’s decision by the Brooklyn-based Appellate Division, Second Department — the same court that gave us 1545 Ocean Avenue — in Mace v Tunick, 2017 NY Slip Op 06170 [2d Dept Aug. 16, 2017], I would have answered that question “no” with support from a number of case precedents in New York and other jurisdictions including that hotbed of contractarian jurisprudence known as Delaware. [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 3:33 am by Peter Mahler
Until last week’s decision by the Brooklyn-based Appellate Division, Second Department — the same court that gave us 1545 Ocean Avenue — in Mace v Tunick, 2017 NY Slip Op 06170 [2d Dept Aug. 16, 2017], I would have answered that question “no” with support from a number of case precedents in New York and other jurisdictions including that hotbed of contractarian jurisprudence known as Delaware. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 3:31 am by Peter Mahler
Which is why last summer’s decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department in Mace v Tunick was such an eye opener. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 10:00 am
The court ignored the fact that the tactic also dramatically increased the potential recovery by the class because of the quirk in the FDCPA.In response to the court's order to show cause, counsel cites Mace v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 10:47 am by Eugene Volokh
Mace is, in fact, legal in all 50 states, and the Court sees no reason why mace would not also be constitutionally protected.] [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 8:27 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Mace said that Austin was not following instructions and she should come see Mace. [read post]
9 May 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
The Appellate Divisions said that this argument was unavailing in light of his disciplinary history, citing Gomez v Kelly, 55 AD3d 305, reversed 12 NY3d 883 [Gomez I].In Gomez I the Appellate Division said that substantial evidence supported the findings that Gomez violated [1] his commanding officer's order to terminate his involvement in a criminal investigation; [2] failed to take possession of drugs during a police department integrity test; [3] failed to voucher his helmet,… [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 7:34 am
The Table of Contents for Volume 65 are as follows: Validity, Construction, and Application of State Sex Offender Registration Statutes Concerning Level of Classification—Initial Classification Determination When Does the Use of Pepper Spray, Mace, or Other Similar Chemical Irritants Constitute Violation of Constitutional Rights Pretrial Discovery in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Physician Preemption of State Regulation of Weapons and Other Laws by Federal Gun… [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 1:51 am by Peter Mahler
Mace v Tunick The analysis got more complicated in the wake of the Appellate Division, Second Department’s 2017 decision in the Mace v Tunick case that I wrote about here and here. [read post]