Search for: "Ramos v. State" Results 341 - 360 of 581
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2014, 6:26 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The issue is whether employee contracts committing parties to pay prevailing waves under a provision of the State Labor Law must specify what particular work the prevailing wages will be paid for.The case is Ramos v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
  By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 5:13 pm by Joey Fishkin
 The first challenge to a photo ID law to reach the Supreme Court—Crawford v. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 1:30 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
In February 2014, we reported on the Second Circuit’s request for direction from the New York Court of Appeals as to two questions arising out of Ramos v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 9:00 pm by Michael W. Dowdle
  But I do not think that it stands with regards to the other variants that we will be exploring -- namely the experimental variant (aka 'Beijing Consensus v.2') and the state-capitalist variant (aka 'Beijing Consensus v.3'). [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 1:00 pm by Lauren Bateman
The transcript of Judge Edgardo Ramos’ Wednesday hearing in Restis v. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 6:41 am by hlpronline
Just before 9:00 PM EST, District Court Judge Ramos, in Veasey v. [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 6:33 pm by Lyle Denniston
  That is a principle the Court appeared to establish in a late October 2006 decision, Purcell v. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 6:11 am by Eric Penzer
  However, “it might also be safely said that the occasional easy case makes law that is even worse” (People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610, 628 [1976] [Jasen, dissenting]). [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 9:21 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Court of Appeals says the plaintiff can sue these fellas under Section 1983.The case is Gleason v. [read post]