Search for: "Mendez v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 284
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2014, 2:20 pm
State v. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 11:17 am
Ever since the FDA decided that discretion was the better part of valor – or read the handwriting on the wall – and decided not to appeal United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2014, 3:44 am
In Marrero-Mendez v. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
In Bond v Lichtenstein (pdf), decided July 15, 2014, Justice Mendez granted a mother summary judgment in lieu of complaint under C.P.L.R. [read post]
13 Jul 2014, 10:58 am
., United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
”One exception to the general rule: In Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612 the Appellate Division held that as long as the termination of a probationer appointed to a position in the classified service is effected within a reasonable time after the end of his or her maximum period of probation, such as set to coincide with the end of the next payroll period, he or she does not attain tenure by estoppel or acquisition notwithstanding his or her continuation on the payroll. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Such was the case in Mallon v Parness, 167 A.D.2d 614. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:35 am
In Valdez v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 12:40 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 May 2014, 2:12 pm
” Méndez v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 11:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 9:18 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 10:32 am
The case is Scenic America, Inc, Plaintiff,. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 2:27 pm
” United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 10:43 am
The case is entitled Mendez v. [read post]
10 Oct 2012, 8:50 am
In Florida Department of Agriculture And Consumer Services v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 3:55 am
In Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612, the Appellate Division held that retaining Mendez on the payroll until the end of payroll period for administrative convenience did not result in his attaining tenure in the position. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 3:32 pm
Two AFPD wins:U.S. v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 3:23 pm
Until this week, the Sixth Circuit had not had opportunity to consider a New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault (deadly weapon).In United States v. [read post]
