Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Administrative reviews ("Fair Hearings") of decisions by a local social services agency are handled by the OTDA Office of Administrative Hearings. [1] A Rivera request , also known as an evidence packet request, is the document (labeled W-186A) used for requesting evidence relating to a NYC Human Resources Administration fair hearing pursuant ...
If the Rivera request is made 5 or more business days before the hearing, then the Local Department of Social Services (LDSS) has five business days to put a reply in the mail. If the request is made less than 5 business days before the hearing the LDSS must mail an evidence packet if requested and bring a copy to the hearing for the appellant.
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits.
The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority." [2] The rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are the following: [3] An unbiased tribunal.
Taxi and Vehicle for Hire Hearings (Taxi and Limousine Tribunal), for hearings conducted on summonses for TLC rules and regulations violations issued by the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) NYPD; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), for hearings on applications for zoning variances and special-use ...
A corporate landlord raised the rent for 1,900 homes in California by too much and broke the law in doing so, according to a lawsuit filed by the state’s Department of Justice.
Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842) Federal courts hearing cases were bound to follow the statutory laws of states that they were asked to enforce, but not the state's common law. The goal was to encourage the development of a federal common law; since that did not occur, the decision was overruled almost a century later by Erie Railroad Co. v ...
Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth Courts (October 19, 1789 – December 15, 1800); Marshall Court (February 4, 1801 – July 6, 1835); Taney Court (March 28, 1836 – October 12, 1864)