South Carolina v. Katzenbach
383 U.S. 301 (1966) Cited 654 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a state is not a person entitled to due process under the fifth amendment
Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n
555 U.S. 353 (2009) Cited 144 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that Idaho's limitation on public employee payroll deductions did not implicate the First Amendment, as the prohibition simply prevented organizations from enlisting the state's support of their speech
Nebbia v. New York
291 U.S. 502 (1934) Cited 1,467 timesHolding that due process is not violated if the challenged law has "a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose" and is "neither arbitrary nor discriminatory"
Matter of Brusco v. Braun
84 N.Y.2d 674 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 279 timesIn Brusco, for example, the Article 78 proceeding sought to compel the issuance of a judgment to which the Petitioner was entitled by law.
American Dairy Assn. v. Rasmussen
412 U.S. 950 (1973) Cited 115 timesNo. 72-1471. June 18, 1973. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 472 F. 2d 517.
Silver v. Pataki
96 N.Y.2d 532 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 153 timesHolding that individual legislator had standing to sue governor regarding the constitutionality of his vetoes, despite the legislature's not attempting to override the vetoes
Williams v. Mayor
289 U.S. 36 (1933) Cited 315 timesRecognizing that "a subordinate unit of government created by the State to carry out delegated governmental functions" or "a political subdivision, 'created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator' "
Hernandez v. Robles
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5239 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 106 times 1 Legal AnalysesConcluding that rational-basis scrutiny was appropriate in part because same-sex relationships "cannot lead to the birth of children"
E.S. v. P.D
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1336 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 102 timesNo. 7. Argued January 3, 2007. Decided February 15, 2007. APPEAL, on constitutional grounds, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered March 28, 2006. The Appellate Division order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sandra L. Sgroi, J.; see 6 Misc 3d 1030[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51846[U]), which had granted the petition and awarded petitioner grandmother reasonable visitation rights with her
Trenton v. New Jersey
262 U.S. 182 (1923) Cited 365 timesHolding that a municipality acts as an agent of the state in exercising the powers delegated to it by the state
Section 601.4 - Claim adjudication
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 601.4 Cited 9 timesThe department will be responsible for examining claims for reimbursement submitted by social services districts. Initial determinations objecting to the allowability of a claim for reimbursement will be made in a timely manner not to exceed 90 days from the time of receipt by the department, unless the department notifies a district that a specified amount of additional time, not to exceed an additional 90 days, is necessary to complete examination of the claim. Any portion of a claim to which there
Section 601.3 - Reimbursement claiming time limits
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 601.3 Cited 6 timesExcept as otherwise provided, to be eligible for State reimbursement, expenditures for public assistance, care and services, or for any other activity which is subject to reimbursement by the department, must be made within the time limits set forth in this section and must be included in a claim submitted by the social services district to the department for the time period in which such expenditures are claimed to have been made. (a) Claims for expenditures which are subject to reimbursement by