Search for: "Williams v. Davis" Results 101 - 120 of 1,082
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Part Two detailed the line of Supreme Court precedent going back more than a century rejecting ISL premises, at least in federal election contexts (as distinguished from other places the Constitution refers to state “legislatures”), including Davis v. [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 12:36 pm by Eugene Volokh
Flowers (5th Cir. 1990) (involving restrictions on the speech of governmental employees), and reiterated in In re Davis (Tex. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]
26 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. [read post]