Search for: "Doe v. Chandler"
Results 41 - 60
of 319
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2020, 9:41 am
Does that sound grotesque? [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 7:21 am
Chandler v. [read post]
29 Mar 2020, 4:13 pm
Fund v. [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 1:25 pm
Chandler, 458 F. [read post]
14 Mar 2020, 2:47 pm
Goldberg, After Frustration: Three Cheers for Chandler v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:14 am
BRI does not yet embrace such formal arrangements between foreign states without China at the center. [read post]
3 Nov 2019, 4:17 pm
The Press Gazette has coverage as does INFORRM. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 1:19 pm
EFF’s annual Pioneer Awards ceremony celebrates individuals and groups who have made outstanding contributions to freedom and innovation on the electronic frontier. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 9:59 am
I directed my colleague to look at Chandler v. [read post]
7 May 2019, 8:27 am
In North Carolina v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 9:46 am
Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 9:08 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 4:07 pm
The Press Gazette has commentary, as does the Guardian and INFORRM. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 6:06 pm
” That same understanding is found when we generalize the dicta of former Chancellor William Chandler in eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 7:31 pm
Chandler (App. 1 Dist. 1968) 68 Cal.Rptr. 645, 262 Cal.App.2d 350), and in criminal proceedings for recordings not excepted by the statute (i.e. lawfully by law enforcement; People v. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 8:52 pm
I am delighted to set out below some thoughts on a recently published book on corporate social responsibility (CSR). [read post]
