Search for: "Nielsen v. Nielsen" Results 61 - 80 of 746
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jun 2013, 11:05 am by Steve Vladeck
For the past three years, numerous courts and commentators have understood the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 8:34 am
Petition seeking to remove a public office from his or her position pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 must be served in accordance with the rules of the Appellate Division having jurisdiction Nielsen v Hafner, 2013 NY Slip Op 01555, Appellate Division, Second Department §36 of the Public Officers Law provides for the removal of a town, village, improvement district or fire district officer, other than a justice of the peace, for misconduct, maladministration,… [read post]
3 May 2010, 11:42 am by Art Hinshaw
This past week we’ve been passing along some of the commentary on the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Stolt-Nielsen v. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 5:12 am by Immigration Prof
District Court Judge Loretta Biggs issued a permanent injunction in Guilford College et al v. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 7:39 am by Immigration Prof
Professor Peter Margulies analyzes the Supreme Court oral arguments in Nielsen v. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 3:56 am by lpbncontracts
Stipanowich has identified as the Supreme Court's Third Arbitration Law Trilogy: Stolt- Nielsen S.A. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 1:33 pm by Paul Kirgis
Sotomayor did not participate in Stolt-Nielsen, which produced a 5-3 majority with Ginsburg, Breyer, and the now-retired Justice Stevens in [...] [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 5:46 am
Stolt-Nielsen SA, the DOJ Antitrust Division Releases New Guidelines for its Leniency Program Joe Palazzolo and... [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 3:08 pm by Immigration Prof
Earlier today, I posted Jennifer Chacon's insights on the oral arguments in the Supreme Court in the case of Nielsen v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 11:23 am by Ruthann Robson
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law In his opinion in Ramos v. [read post]