Search for: "IN RE GEE MINORS" Results 1 - 20 of 49
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
Gee, I wonder what Trump voters think in US culture is at a tipping point. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 4:00 am by Robert McKay
Of course, a talented and savvy minority do exceptionally well from legal writing and publishing. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 2:52 pm by Patricia Hughes
INTRODUCTION In this post, I propose that the concept of bona fides, or acting in good faith, be applied to the conduct of constitutional actors. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 2:00 am by James Davis, Editor, HR Daily Advisor
And gee, what a surprise that that disadvantaged workers for decades and decades. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am by Schachtman
Requirements Imposed By State Licensing Boards and Medical Professional Societies The involvement of medical professionals in disciplining physicians for dubious litigation testimony, whether through state licensing authorities or voluntary medical associations, raises some difficult questions: Does a physician’s rendering an opinion on a medical issue in litigation, such as diagnosing silicosis, asbestosis, welding-induced encephalopathy, or fenfluramine-related cardiac injury, constitute the… [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"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 by Public Employment Law Press
"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 by Public Employment Law Press
"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 by Public Employment Law Press
"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]
15 Oct 2019, 3:56 pm by Patricia Hughes
The King (1914); the federal nature of Canada (see the cases referred to by the dissent in Patriation Reference (1981); section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Provincial Judges Reference); or the constitution generally (Reference re Alberta Statutes (1938). [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 3:00 am by John Jenkins
Umm, gee – isn’t 10% of all the equity assets in the world kind of a lot? [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Robert McKay
Many other acquisitions have included Lawtel, Incomes Data Services and Ellis Publications and a disposal that I am sure that they were delighted to do was of Gee Publishing, acquired in the mid-1980s, to Wolters Kluwer. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:00 am by Administrator
This is not a question of simply criticizing counsel or enforcing minor orders out of an over-sensitive sense of judgitis. [read post]