Search for: "Trump v. New York" Results 241 - 260 of 3,509
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2008, 12:15 pm
Evidence of a valid reason for taking disciplinary action against an employee trumps a finding that there was an improper reason for such actionBatyreva v New York City Dept. of Education, 2008 NY Slip Op 09841, Decided on December 16, 2008, Appellate Division, First DepartmentOlga Batyreva alleges that she was assigned to grade a Regents examination and while doing so, observed other teachers improperly grading the exam with No. 2 pencils instead of red pencils… [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:51 am
Evidence of a valid reason for taking disciplinary action against an employee trumps a finding that there was an improper reason for such actionBatyreva v New York City Dept. of Education, 57 AD3d 322, Motion to appeal denied, Slip Opinion No: 2009 NYSlipOp 67524Olga Batyreva alleged that she was assigned to grade a Regents examination and while doing so, observed other teachers improperly grading the exam with No. 2 pencils instead of red pencils or red pens. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 9:30 am by INFORRM
On 29 January 2016 Mr Malik applied to the High Court for permission to serve proceedings on Mr Trump in New York. [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 11:23 pm by Mary Mock
” It was a case of first impression in the Southern District of New York. [read post]
9 Apr 2022, 3:01 am by Karl Mihm
The case is currently at the New York Court of Appeals, the highest New York state court. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 12:23 pm by Luca Marzorati
Szalczyk, the Third Circuit—relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 5:15 am
Hamilton, New York)).That's a principle that ought to be kept in mind in considering each of the 5 different grounds for overturning the Colorado Supreme Court's decision:1. ... [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 1:26 pm by Amanda Proctor
District Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether an “insured v. insured” (IvI) exclusion applied to bar coverage for an underlying lawsuit brought against insureds under a directors & officers (D&O) liability policy by another insured under the same policy, and another noninsured party. [read post]