Search for: "State v. Terry" Results 21 - 40 of 2,239
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Decisions of the New York State Commissioner of EducationDecision No. 18,401 (April 25, 2024) Robin Roach, General Counsel District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, attorneys for petitioner, Terry Buck, Esq., of counsel Hon. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Decisions of the New York State Commissioner of EducationDecision No. 18,401 (April 25, 2024) Robin Roach, General Counsel District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, attorneys for petitioner, Terry Buck, Esq., of counsel Hon. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm by John Ross
Police arrive, vehicle tries to leave, police conduct a Terry stop, and they discover the gun. [read post]
2 May 2024, 1:03 pm
Justice Corrigan authors a powerful opinion that holds that it's not permissible for the police to conduct a Terry stop just because someone's in a high crime area and pretending to tie his shoe behind a car in order to avoid the police, and Justice Evan authors an equally powerful concurrence (joined by a majority of the Court) that highlights the racial implications of a rule that assumes that the "normal" response to a police encounter is to welcome and/or… [read post]
13 Apr 2024, 3:33 pm by admin
Prelude to Litigation Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was a widely used direct α-adrenergic agonist used as a medication to control cold symptoms and to suppress appetite for weight loss.[1] In 1972, an over-the-counter (OTC) Advisory Review Panel considered the safety and efficacy of PPA-containing nasal decongestant medications, leading, in 1976, to a recommendation that the agency label these medications as “generally recognized as safe and effective. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm by Korinne Dunn
These states follow the logic of Marvin v. [read post]
16 Mar 2024, 9:31 pm by Justin Hendrix
Judge Terry Doughty’s opinion: “Various emails show Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits through evidence that the motivation of the NIAID Defendants was a ‘take down’ of protected free speech. [read post]