Search for: "State v. Kingston" Results 81 - 100 of 195
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2012, 12:43 pm
  We also represent victimized investors throughout the rest of New York State, including Buffalo, Binghamton, Syracuse, Watertown, Utica, Kingston, New York City/Manhattan, Long Island, and everywhere in between, as well as in the surrounding states of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New Jersey. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:14 am
The basis for his breach of contract action: Carson alleged that a DOS employee had promised him that he would be reinstated to his former position upon his completion of a drug treatment program.Citing Granada Building, Inc v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, the Appellate Division dismissed Carson’s appeal. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 7:53 am by Joel R. Brandes
There is no showing that [the foreign attorney] is admitted to practice in [this state] or before this Court. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 4:19 pm
The petition in Teen Ranch, et al., v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 4:19 pm
The petition in Teen Ranch, et al., v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 1:26 am by Dave
 There was a suggestion drawn from Banks v Kingston upon Thames RLBC [2008] EWCA Civ 1443 about when a decision about homelessness becomes deficient, but, as Jackson LJ, said, althoughit is tempting to use that by analogy: Tempting but wrong. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 2:41 am
 The facts were as stated in our previous note. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 10:51 am by Amanda Pickens
October 13, 2017) (purported collective and class action brought under federal and state wage and hour laws by employees of defendant who were “home health aides” and also performed related activities for defendant in Kingston, North Carolina who allege they were not paid correct overtime premium rate compensation.) [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 10:51 am by Dennis Crouch
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., et al., No. 19-1459; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 4:27 am by Dave
  In other words, the question was whether the judgment of Gage LJ in Tetteh v Kingston Upon Thames Royal London Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1775 survived Hotak; ie that it remained correct in asserting that a review decision had to be read as a whole and that there was no reason for the reviewer to go further than stating the test and the overall finding. [read post]