Search for: "State v. Burden"
Results 21 - 40
of 22,145
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2025, 8:13 am
In De Castro v. [read post]
13 May 2025, 6:38 am
Each had close ties to Washington state. [read post]
13 May 2025, 5:41 am
This ruling by the Appellate Division Second Department provides some guidance, holding that the state law aligns with the New York City Human Rights Law, long recognized as one of the most liberal antidiscrimination laws in the country.The case is Wright v. [read post]
13 May 2025, 5:01 am
From Judge James Lorenz's order yesterday in S.E. v. [read post]
13 May 2025, 4:00 am
Here is a recent example:In Brandon v. [read post]
13 May 2025, 2:38 am
Each had close ties to Washington state. [read post]
12 May 2025, 10:00 pm
Cunningham v. [read post]
12 May 2025, 11:40 am
The Ohio Supreme Court based its ruling on the “foreign-natural” and “reasonable expectation” tests established in the 1960 case Allen v. [read post]
12 May 2025, 10:45 am
Under Florida Statute §627.727, you have the right to pursue these claims, but the burden of proof falls on you as the injured party. [read post]
12 May 2025, 10:45 am
Under Florida Statute §627.727, you have the right to pursue these claims, but the burden of proof falls on you as the injured party. [read post]
12 May 2025, 10:38 am
#StopTheSADScheme Case Citation: GM Photo, LLC v. [read post]
12 May 2025, 6:36 am
" Swatch AG v. [read post]
12 May 2025, 6:23 am
First of all, this was already the state of the law in the 8th Circuit (see Braden v. [read post]
12 May 2025, 5:00 am
In Friday's Doe v. [read post]
10 May 2025, 9:05 am
Seinfeld v. [read post]
9 May 2025, 7:20 pm
[Lessons from Hamdi v. [read post]
9 May 2025, 9:50 am
This kind of weakening (or merely interpreting, depending on your attitude) is what the Maryland Supreme Court is considering in Katrina Hare v. [read post]
9 May 2025, 6:28 am
Anchor Stone Christian Church v City of Santa Rosa, 2025 WL 1086360 (CD CA 4/7/2025) [read post]
8 May 2025, 7:55 am
In that suit — United States v. [read post]
8 May 2025, 6:00 am
DC 37's asserted defense that the "[c]omplaint fails to state a claim against [DC 37] upon which relief may be granted" encompassed DC 37's later argument that plaintiff failed to meet his burdens, including under the Martin rule (see Morton v Mulgrew, 144 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2016]; Salemeh, 25 AD3d at 411-412).The court also properly dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim against his employer, H+H, because his employment… [read post]
