Search for: "McMahon v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 251
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2024, 8:00 am by Paul Caron
Stephanie Hunter McMahon (Cincinnati), Moore Support for Tax Exceptionalism: Severability in Reconciliation: Moore v. [read post]
6 Dec 2015, 11:06 am by Dan Ernst
But as McMahon observes, if the high court ruled to enforce Brown v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 2:03 pm by Stephen Bilkis
In Matter of Karlin v McMahon, Doyen v McMahon and Doe v Riback, it was held that releasing the requested documents, even in redacted form, would be releasing some portion of a document that tends to identify the victim of a sex crime and thereby would violate the statute. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 11:57 am by admin
Abortion, and more specifically the continuation of the Roe v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 1:41 pm by MBettman
Teaford, Assistant Attorney General, Columbus, for Appellee, Tax Commissioner of Ohio Here are Professor McMahon’s Observations On The Oral Argument Cincinnati Reds, LLC v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:03 am by MBettman
Testa by Stepahie Hunter McMahon On November 17, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in Crutchfield Corp. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2024, 11:14 am by vrose
McMahon, the plaintiffs are challenging the GOP-drawn map over violations of the new criteria included in the state Municipal Home Rule Law. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 2:01 am
Evaluating the credibility of a witness in a disciplinary actionJackson v McMahon, 275 AD2d 546The Appellate Division upheld the disciplinary determinations and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of State Police on four troopers who were found guilty of misconduct and neglect of duty after being found sleeping in their patrol cars while on duty at about 3:30 in the morning.The troopers had stopped the two patrol cars in which they were riding to set up radar… [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 7:24 am by MBettman
Guest Post by Professor McMahon On November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C. v. [read post]