Search for: "Smith v. Employment Division"
Results 141 - 160
of 741
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
" The Appellate Division's decision then pointed out that "Hearsay is admissible in [administrative] disciplinary proceedings," citing Education Law §3020-a[3][c] and Matter of Smith v New York City Dept. of Educ., 109 AD3d 701, leave to appeal denied, 22 NY3d 856. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
" The Appellate Division's decision then pointed out that "Hearsay is admissible in [administrative] disciplinary proceedings," citing Education Law §3020-a[3][c] and Matter of Smith v New York City Dept. of Educ., 109 AD3d 701, leave to appeal denied, 22 NY3d 856. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 12:06 pm
This case squarely presented the question whether Employment Division v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 10:52 am
After Employment Division v. [read post]
21 Nov 2020, 9:47 am
(I have long supported the Employment Division v. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 1:45 am
This test was considered in the House of Lords in British Coal Corporation v Smith and others [1996] ICR 515. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 5:55 am
Smith v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 5:43 pm
The case was particularly interesting because at least in some quarters it was viewed as the opportunity to repudiate what is left of the still controversial decision of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 9:00 pm
The believers can believe whatever they like and organize their affairs through discriminatory purposes, to be sure, but not when the government is paying and not when the public is impacted.And that is the beauty of Employment Division v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 7:16 pm
"The Circuit Court noted that while Smith may have been fired for some other legitimate reason related to alcohol use, it would be improper to grant the County's motion for summary judgment without specific evidence that Smith was fired for such a reason.A related point involving summary termination pursuant to a disciplinary grievance settlement is clearly illustrated in ruling by the Appellate Division in Taylor v Cass, 505 NYS2d 929. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 9:01 pm
The Supreme Court protected such laws in Employment Division v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 2:45 pm
After all, as the Court noted in Employment Division v. [read post]
28 Mar 2014, 2:48 pm
RFRA was an effort to undo a Supreme Court decision — Employment Division v. [read post]
18 Dec 2020, 6:37 am
The Second Circuit interpreted RFRA to allow plaintiffs to sue individual defendants, and the Supreme Court agrees.RFRA was enacted by Congress in the 1990s after the Supreme Court, in Employment Division v. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 3:06 am
" That's at the opposite end of the spectrum from the clear rule that Justice Scalia articulated in Employment Division v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 3:26 am
In Denenberg v Rosen ;2010 NY Slip Op 00081 ;Decided on January 7, 2010 ;Appellate Division, ;First Department ; Moskowitz, J. the question of when the relationship begins between client and attorney is discussed. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 3:46 am
However, from late 2006 onwards at Reed Smith Richard Butler, we saw an increasing instance of cases where employers’ [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Simson, The Uncertain Good of Overruling Employment Division v. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 9:35 am
Employment Division v. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 11:00 am
The regulations appear to be a response to the holding in Gattuso v. [read post]
