Search for: "Taylor v. Taylor"
Results 2001 - 2020
of 4,350
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2017, 4:50 am
Taylor v. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 8:30 am
LEXIS 65746, June 9, 2010) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's claim that a corrections officer destroyed and disposed of his religious articles to prevent him from practicing his Islamic faith.In Taylor v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 2:45 am
Ullmann-Schneider v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, P.C., 121 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]; Soni v Pryor, 102 AD3d 856, 858 [2d Dept 2013]). [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 11:50 am
--Taylor v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 3:07 am
Creating new negotiating unitsErie County v PERB, Appellate Division, 247 A.D.2d 671The Erie County v PERB case suggests that PERB has become more flexible regarding splitting sheriff’s department employees into separate collective bargaining units.In Erie County Teamsters Local 264 represented a single large negotiating unit that included both Deputy Sheriff-criminal [“criminal deputies”] and Deputy Sheriff-officer [“officer deputies”] positions. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 3:41 am
In addition, Civil Service Law Section 209-a.6, a subdivision that is part of the Taylor Law, provides that “In applying this section, fundamental distinctions between private and public employment shall be recognized, and no body of federal or state law applicable wholly or in part to private employment, shall be regarded as binding or controlling precedent. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 8:45 pm
In today’s case (Gamble v. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 8:25 am
Boone v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 8:39 am
Ohio July 25, 2011).Taylor v. [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 6:33 am
Taylor, 529 U. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 10:01 am
Nathaniel Sobel and Julia Solomon-Strauss discussed the latest news in Trump v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 4:37 pm
Franck Vecella described the benefits of the ITC even for SEPs, citing the Apple v Samsung dispute. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 1:51 am
The Hilary Term starts today, and the first hearings listed are the linked matters of Adamson v Paddico Ltd and Taylor (on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Markham & Little Francis) v Betterment Properties Ltd in Courtroom 2 on Wednesday 15 Jan 2014. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 9:40 am
In Nelson v. [read post]
22 Jan 2017, 11:49 am
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge discusses Bhayani & Anor v Taylor Bracewell LLP, [2016] EWHC 3360, a summary judgment in which addressed the question of whether there was passing off due to the use of the plaintiff’s family name as part of the law firm’s name after she had left the partnership.PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATENever Too Late 130 [week ending on Sunday 8 January] | Around the IP Blogs | Sunday Surprises | Trademark and co-branding as a badge of … did you… [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:30 am
Further, a department policy does not trump the probationary period established by law or by a rule or regulations having the force and effect of law [Yan Ping Xu v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2014 NY Slip Op 07261, Appellate Division, First Department].In addition, a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law Article 14] may set out procedures to be followed by an appointing authority regarding the… [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 4:00 am
Probationer challenging dismissal from the position claims to have suffered extreme emotional distress Petkewicz v Dutchess County Dept. of Community and Family Servs., 2016 NY Slip Op 01854 [Action I] Petkewicz v Dutchess County Dept. of Community and Family Servs., 2016 NY Slip Op 01819 [Action II]Susan Petkewicz filed two lawsuits against the Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Services in Supreme Court. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 7:01 am
Bogan, and Lee v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 7:53 am
In this week’s case (Lanteigne v. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:01 am
Toomey, citing School District 6 v NYSHRB, 35 NY2d 371, said that such a personnel policy, even if the product of negotiations under [the Taylor Law] would violate the State’s Human Rights Law and is therefore a prohibited subject of negotiations.* See Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [read post]
