Search for: "State v. Porter" Results 1 - 20 of 896
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2024, 11:58 am by John Elwood
[Disclosure: Delligatti is represented by Arnold & Porter, for whom I work. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Philip Young, Richard Dearing and Devin Slack of counsel), for Bill DeBlasio, Mayor of New York City, New York City Department of Education and Meisha Porter, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, respondents.Dennis J. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Philip Young, Richard Dearing and Devin Slack of counsel), for Bill DeBlasio, Mayor of New York City, New York City Department of Education and Meisha Porter, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, respondents.Dennis J. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 11:09 am by Neil H. Buchanan
  Antonin Scalia had an acid tongue ("pure applesauce," "jiggery-pokery"), and he did his share of trolling as well (once responding to a law student's question about Bush v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am by centerforartlaw
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 6:22 am by Guest Author
Sweet Home Chapter of Communities, the Court distinguished its previous decision in United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
"); Riley Gaines Assaulted by Trans Activists at San Francisco State University, Yahoo News (describing how prote [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 8:33 am by CMS
” The trial Judge’s decision was based on various authorities, from Fielding v Variety Inc [1967] 2 QB 841 (CA) to BHX v GRX [2021] EWHC 770 (QB), and the lower court ultimately dismissed the libel and slander claims for want of serious harm. [read post]