Search for: "State v. Simmons"
Results 1 - 20
of 796
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2025, 3:46 pm
In U.S. courts, United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2025, 3:37 am
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]
19 Mar 2025, 1:22 am
Simmons emphasized the critical role of research. [read post]
10 Mar 2025, 5:00 am
In Jennings v. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 2:23 pm
In United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2025, 8:06 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jan 2025, 5:55 am
In Simmons v. [read post]
19 Dec 2024, 1:30 am
Matter of City of Watertown v State of N.Y. [read post]
19 Dec 2024, 1:30 am
Matter of City of Watertown v State of N.Y. [read post]
9 Dec 2024, 5:24 am
” Simmons v. [read post]
20 Nov 2024, 11:39 am
In 2005, the US Supreme Court in Roper v. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 5:00 am
See Simmons v. [read post]
8 Oct 2024, 9:01 pm
SEC v. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am
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
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]
15 Sep 2024, 1:10 pm
Godagam & Edirisinghe v Hanson. [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 4:26 pm
Supreme Court's 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
16 Aug 2024, 11:21 am
Brooks v. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am
"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
"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]
