Search for: "State v. York"
Results 181 - 200
of 35,860
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2011, 4:10 am
Certain New York State Department of Civil Service Rules and President's Regulations scheduled to be reviewedSource: State Register, January 5, 2011The NYS Register dated January 5, 2011 reports that “Pursuant to section 207 of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), notice is hereby provided of rules adopted by the New York State Civil Service Commission and President of the Commission during calendar years 2001 and 2006. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 8:34 am
New York State Higher Education Services Corporation v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 4:05 am
New York's Attorney General announced Tuesday that its office has filed an amicus brief (full text) in Windsor v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 8:18 pm
Wednesday’s argument in New York v. [read post]
17 Jul 2006, 7:03 am
New York State Department of Civil Service,... [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 11:58 am
Walnut Place LLC v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 11:36 am
Starbucks Corporation, No. 10–4912–cv, and Winans et al. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 8:47 am
<> Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 8:36 am
New York to that list. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 11:34 am
Here: King Mountain Opening Brief NCAI Amicus Brief New York Brief US Amicus Biref King Mountain Reply Prior posts here. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 9:00 pm
Hoffman v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 8:30 pm
People v. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 7:13 am
State of New York (N.D. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 7:04 am
Here is the pleading in State of New York v. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 2:13 pm
New York State Tax Appeals Trib. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 7:50 am
DiNapoli et al v. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 11:57 am
Hurd of the United States District Court for the Northern District in New York. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 3:48 am
New York State Gaming Commission (N.D. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 1:56 am
New York State Department of Taxation & Finance and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 88 N.C. [read post]
25 May 2017, 5:34 am
Last September, the Circuit sent Chauca v. [read post]
