Search for: "SIMMONS v. ORTIZ"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2011, 3:35 am
Public employee not always entitled to a name-clearing hearingBrown v Simmons, 478 F.3d 922The lesson in Brown v Simmons is that a public employee is not entitled to a name-clearing hearing to rebut statements of a defamatory nature except when he or she has been terminated by the employer. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 1:10 pm
MARIA ISABEL LERMA, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., No. 08-0032 JAMES ANDERSON, PATRICIA ANDERSON, JACK CROWDER, CATHY CROWDER, GARY DZYAK, GEORGE ROSEMEIER, EVELYN ROSEMEIER, TOBY SIMMONS, AND PEGGY SIMMONS v. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 6:05 pm
The People have the initial burden of going forward to show the “lack of any undue suggestiveness” (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990]; People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]). [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 8:17 am
Ortiz v Camm-Way in 2008 was case concerning an obscure part of the section which prevented the invalidation of the use as herald or a city name. [read post]
9 May 2007, 1:34 pm
Stephenson v. [read post]
