Search for: "United States v. Rosario" Results 1 - 20 of 90
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jul 2013, 5:46 am by Susan Brenner
This judge began his analysis of the motion by noting that to “`“state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law. [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 3:58 am by Public Employment Law Press
"The court explained that the "express purpose of Labor Law §740 is to protect public health and safety" and as it stated in Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 179 AD3d 516, "[t]he Compact Clause of the United Stated Constitution is not implicated by the application of such New York workplace safety statutes to [a] Port Authority work site located in New York. [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 3:58 am by Public Employment Law Press
"The court explained that the "express purpose of Labor Law §740 is to protect public health and safety" and as it stated in Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 179 AD3d 516, "[t]he Compact Clause of the United Stated Constitution is not implicated by the application of such New York workplace safety statutes to [a] Port Authority work site located in New York. [read post]