Search for: "State v. Fenton" Results 1 - 20 of 48
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2011, 4:35 am
Equal pay for equal work and “red lined” positions Fenton v St. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 4:15 am
A higher standard of fitness and character is required of police officers than is required of “ordinary civil servants”Matter of Bassett v Fenton, 2009 NY Slip Op 09338, Decided on December 17, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentNew York State Trooper Timothy J. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 2:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
”Although Trooper offered explanations “for some of the many discrepancies” in his testimony, the Appellate Division said that “this created a credibility question which was resolved against him” and substantial evidence supports the administrative determination.As to the penalty imposed by the Superintendent, the court said “we have observed that ‘a State Trooper holds a position of great sensitivity and trust and a higher standard of fitness and… [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 8:56 am by Paul Levy
Indeed, in Missouri as in Virginia and many other states, state law forbids even a permanent injunction against defamatory statements – in Missouri, this approach is based on the view that the state constitution makes a permanent injunction against defamatory speech an impermissible prior restraint. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Smith, Lauren Fontana, Susannah William Pollvogt & Tanya Washington, Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. [read post]
14 Sep 2012, 2:59 am
Auvil was the name plaintiff on behalf of 4,700 Washington State apple growers when the group sued "60 Minutes" and NDRC, as well as Fenton Communications Inc., the go between for NDRC and "60 Minutes." [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 8:48 am
Fenton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (striking down state remedial education program administered in part in parochial schools); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely, see Marsh v. [read post]