Search for: "McGuire v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 335
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2015, 3:30 am by Cyra Choudhury
In her article The Illusion of Equality: The Failure of the Community Property Reform to Achieve Management Equality, Elizabeth Carter reminds family law scholars and practitioners of the importance of these questions raised so memorably in the 1953 case of McGuire v. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 8:01 am
and Hull McGuire love humans and therefore love all jurors (except for The-Morally-Certain and, of course, some Duke grads and most engineers). [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 5:30 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Terminating a teacher during his or her probationary periodZarinfar v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 12:16 pm by Public Employment Law Press
In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation… [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 3:30 am
Removal of a public officer from his or her position by operation of law Greene v McGuire, 683 F.2d 32 §30 of the Public Officers Law provides for the automatic removal of an individual from his or her public office under certain conditions. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 12:16 pm by Public Employment Law Press
In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation… [read post]