Search for: "State v. Theroux"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2015, 4:00 am
Further, said the Appellate Division, the word "duties" in General Municipal Law § 207-c "encompasses the full range of a covered employee's job duties," citing Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d at 232.The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court properly found that [Lynn] had been injured in the performance of his duties in both instances and that the denial of his applications for §207-c benefits was arbitrary and capricious.The decisions are posted… [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 10:05 am
State v. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 8:14 pm
The classic Supreme Court of Canada decision on these clauses, Atlantic Paper Stock Ltd. v St. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 4:33 am
" (Theroux v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 9:56 am
In addition, citing Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d 232, Judge Lebous commented that the that Court of Appeals has stated that injury for the purposes §207-c of does not have to be sustained performing any heightened risk duties.As to the City’s reliance on Parker’s “choice of parking lots,” which essentially rationalize the ruling on the theory that Parker “should not have parked the supervisor's police vehicle in the rear west… [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 4:08 pm
Fraud Defences As stated earlier, given that each fraud case will be inherently different, there is not one universal defence to fraud. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 4:08 pm
Fraud Defences As stated earlier, given that each fraud case will be inherently different, there is not one universal defence to fraud. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 3:36 am
"Heightened risks" is no longer a viable consideration.-- see Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d 232 ======================= General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder is available from the Public Employment Law Press. [read post]
4 Aug 2007, 8:09 pm
The first case, Johnson v Johnson, Docket No. 258062, was decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals on March 1, 2005. [read post]
