Not exact matches
A Fair Hearing is a chance for you to tell an
Administrative Law Judge from the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Office of
Administrative Hearings, why you think a decision about your case
made by Erie County Social Services is wrong.
O. Any final and definitive decision of an
administrative law judge, or in the case such decision is appealed, a final and definitive judgment of an appellate court, issued in connection with any hearing held pursuant to this Chapter and the Administrative Procedure Act shall be considered a valid and final judgment that may be made executory by the commissioner in accordance with the Code of Ci
administrative law judge, or in the case such decision is appealed, a final and definitive judgment of an appellate court, issued in connection with any hearing held pursuant to this Chapter and the
Administrative Procedure Act shall be considered a valid and final judgment that may be made executory by the commissioner in accordance with the Code of Ci
Administrative Procedure Act shall be considered a valid and final judgment that may be
made executory
by the commissioner in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.
Pending the resolution of that appeal in most instances the carrier is not required to pay medical bills or
make biweekly payments to the Claimant as directed
by the
administrative law judge.
Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal
administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which
made clear that
making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal
law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing
by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited
judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided
by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).