Search for: "State v. Walters" Results 141 - 160 of 1,801
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2017, 5:14 pm by Adrian Vermeule
It in fact became the stated position of the Clinton administration. [read post]
14 May 2020, 1:13 am by CMS
It was a misdirection to say one needed to broadly compensate each individual. 1209: Ms Demetriou QC says it is clear that the Tribunal saw there as being a governing principle that individual claimants must be restored to position they would have been in but for the infringement, which is wrong as a matter of statutory construction. 1202: Ms Demetriou QC states that the compensatory principle is not irrelevant at distribution stage, but it is not a statutory requirement. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
Only service of the petition and related papers an individual authorized by the agency head to accept service constitutes proper serviceMatter of Lowney v New York State Division of Human Rights, 2009 NY Slip Op 30270(U), February 4, 2009, Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 108754/07, Judge: Walter B. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 2:02 am
Only service of the petition and related papers an individual authorized by the agency head to accept service constitutes proper serviceMatter of Lowney v New York State Division of Human Rights, 2009 NY Slip Op 30270(U), February 4, 2009, Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 108754/07, Judge: Walter B. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 10:31 am
On October 12, 2011, the court handed down its opinion in the case of Abby Allen and Walter Moore v. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
From SSRN:Debbie Kaminer, Religious Accommodation in the American Workplace: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in EEOC v. [read post]
6 Jun 2009, 3:07 am
  The study, was authored by Nicole V. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 1:01 am
[Update: Pam Sullivan won in State v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 4:07 am by SHG
  It’s the same mistake of law, that all brake lights had to work rather than just the one the law requires, that the Supreme Court decided was an “objectively reasonable” screw up in Heien v. [read post]