Search for: "State v. Simmons" Results 1 - 20 of 796
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2025, 3:37 am by Oliver Fairhurst
The state of play in the UK courts Q1: Did the Aldi product take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Thatchers mark? [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
SEIU appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.Citing Matter of Taylor v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 182 AD3d 815 and Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, the Appellate Division, noting that one of SEIU's members involved in the instant litigation had retired from the Fire Department, explained "so much of the second amended petition/complaint as was asserted by him is not academic, as the determination that there was… [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
SEIU appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.Citing Matter of Taylor v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 182 AD3d 815 and Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, the Appellate Division, noting that one of SEIU's members involved in the instant litigation had retired from the Fire Department, explained "so much of the second amended petition/complaint as was asserted by him is not academic, as the determination that there was… [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 4:26 pm by David Kopel
Supreme Court's 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"More fundamentally, preclusive effect is limited to only those 'issues that were actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided' " (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Ross v Medical Liab. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"More fundamentally, preclusive effect is limited to only those 'issues that were actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided' " (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Ross v Medical Liab. [read post]