Search for: "Sweeney v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 318
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Sep 2010, 8:24 am
In yet another opinion with a dissent, Sweeney v. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 1:21 am
Subscription needed for online access:
STATE DECISIONS:
Sweeney v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Sweeney, Steven L. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Sweeney, Steven L. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Mills v Sweeney, 219 NY 213, decided in 1916, the Appellate Division explained that any local law that "[a]bolishes an elective office" or "reduces the salary of an elective officer during his [or her] term of office" is subject to the approval of a mandatory referendum. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 3:30 am
As noted above, similar questions were considered in Lumba, and also in the more recent case of R (Kambadzi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 WLR 1299, which was the subject of a [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 10:44 am
This month's column discusses the case of State v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 9:33 pm
CAAF also granted review in United States v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 8:49 am
Sweeney was not a person authorized under O.R.C. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 10:32 am
Sweeney, 40 N.J. 359 (1963); State v. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 1:21 pm
John Parker Sweeney, of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 1:21 pm
John Parker Sweeney, of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. [read post]
25 Dec 2018, 10:00 pm
Post By Patricia Sweeney Justice Warren Burger in the seminal case of Diamond v. [read post]
18 May 2008, 8:14 am
State & Richard Wallace v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 11:57 am
State Farm Mut. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 1:25 pm
United States of America, which vacated a U.S. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 3:38 am
State, 875 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:47 am
Love v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:51 am
In this study, we examine the impact of the gender discrimination lawsuit Pao v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 4:00 am
As the Comptroller's determination — finding that Breslin was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of a light-duty assignment — is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Sweeney v DiNapoli, 88 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2011]; Matter of Murray v New York State Comptroller, 84 AD3d 1681, 1682-1683 [2011]; Matter of Pascale v DiNapoli, 84 AD3d at 1680; Matter of Roache v Hevesi, 38 AD3d… [read post]
