Search for: "People v. Kelly"
Results 121 - 140
of 853
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
” In 1900 this "rule of one" as then set out in then Civil Service Law §14 was struck down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional.In People v Mosher, 163 NY 32, the Court of Appeals held that "if the civil service commissioners have power to certify to the appointing officer only one applicant of several who are eligible and whom they have, by their own methods, ascertained to be fitted for a particular position, and their decision is final ... then… [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
” In 1900 this "rule of one" as then set out in then Civil Service Law §14 was struck down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional.In People v Mosher, 163 NY 32, the Court of Appeals held that "if the civil service commissioners have power to certify to the appointing officer only one applicant of several who are eligible and whom they have, by their own methods, ascertained to be fitted for a particular position, and their decision is final ... then… [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
Supreme Court decision in 2013, and another this year, weakened the landmark law, while Republican-controlled Legislatures passed new voting restrictions advocates say target people of color, as well as young and working-class people. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 9:08 pm
Patent and Trademark Office updated its guidance related to the recent United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 2:00 am
The court considered the proximity in space and time to the workplace, the pressure for employees to attend, and the following facts: The majority of the people at each party were employees;The employer sponsored the initial party;It provided alcohol and encouraged employees to drink;The after-party was a continuation of the first party; andThe employer may have known about Walsh’s previous inappropriate behavior.Phelps v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 2:00 am
The court considered the proximity in space and time to the workplace, the pressure for employees to attend, and the following facts: The majority of the people at each party were employees;The employer sponsored the initial party;It provided alcohol and encouraged employees to drink;The after-party was a continuation of the first party; andThe employer may have known about Walsh’s previous inappropriate behavior.Phelps v. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 12:01 pm
In Kelly v. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 5:01 am
People perspire. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 8:16 pm
& Loan Assoc. v. [read post]
29 May 2021, 5:25 pm
” Ganung v. [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 3:30 am
After the Bridgegate case (Kelly v. [read post]
17 Apr 2021, 10:27 am
As our Supreme Court explained in People v. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am
Most people see the negotiations as an implicit concession that the material is protected by copyright (or by some other type of intellectual property). [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 12:28 pm
Many people might not care about such behavior by elected officials, but I think people reasonably might. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 6:36 pm
[emphasis added] The reference to Justices Armstrong and Kelly were in R. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2021, 2:20 pm
It was nothing more than a fancy tape recording; as to which, last I checked, there isn't really much of a Kelly/Frye dispute. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 1:57 pm
FTC v. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 8:11 am
[My article was about Kelly Hyman v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 10:51 am
Alabama, 219 US 219, 234 (1911) (quoting Kelly v. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 10:55 am
This case, Campbell v. [read post]
