Search for: "State v. A. W."
Results 1 - 20
of 15,517
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2024, 8:06 am
Shugerman, SEC v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ** Civil Service Law §72 applies to public employees in the Classified Service of the State as the employer or a political subdivision of the State [see Civil Service §40]. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ** Civil Service Law §72 applies to public employees in the Classified Service of the State as the employer or a political subdivision of the State [see Civil Service §40]. [read post]
19 May 2024, 8:06 am
The State also relies on State v. [read post]
18 May 2024, 7:41 am
Mular v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:41 am
In Sohm v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:15 am
State and Local Preemption. [read post]
13 May 2024, 1:59 pm
Judge Donald W. [read post]
13 May 2024, 8:39 am
Those are treated as compensation and can yield a W-2 with millions of dollars of income on it. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am
W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). [read post]
13 May 2024, 12:57 am
On Thursday 16 May 2024 there will be an injunction application in the privacy case of Department for Education v Hercules KB-2024-000389 Reserved judgements Harrison v Cameron, heard 26 March 2024 (Steyn J) BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot, heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others, heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 19 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Pacini… [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm
” In addition, if more states enact fair access laws, financial institutions may be required to comply with an increasing number of fair access laws that may be inconsistent from state to state. [read post]
12 May 2024, 6:55 am
In Tuskia v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 2:41 pm
S. 555 (1983), and United States v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 12:15 pm
In Naranjo v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 7:25 am
In Raytheon Co. v. [read post]