Search for: "TAYLOR v. TAYLOR"
Results 2081 - 2100
of 4,359
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2012, 4:25 am
The rule of three was held valid by the Court of Appeals in People v Gaffney, 201 NY 535, a case decided in 1911. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:30 am
In 2016, responding to CACI’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims were non-justiciable under the political question doctrine, the Fourth Circuit reiterated its position in Taylor v. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 6:44 am
IFG, 2021 ONSC 4042.[3] See Taylor v. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 7:05 am
Chambers v. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 1:34 am
In Mitchell v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 11:16 am
Citizens United wasn’t a victory (or a defeat) for the Constitution — it was just a well-placed right hook in the long battle of campaign finance reform v. rich people and institutions doing whatever they want. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 8:05 am
The Supreme Court created the doctrine of qualified immunity in a 1967 decision in the case Pierson v. [read post]
26 Jan 2021, 6:02 am
In Black v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 3:48 am
The City of Plattsburgh and its police officers union agreed while negotiating their 1995-1998 Taylor Law contract to include a provision -- referred to as the “207-c benefits” -- in the agreement. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 3:24 am
Section 205(5)(d) places limits PERB’s authority and PERB does not have jurisdiction with respect to (a) enforcing the terms of an agreement between the parties, nor (b) considering alleged violations of a Taylor Law agreement.Reinstating the ruling by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals held that the district had violated the “unambiguous” terms of the Taylor Law agreement between the parties. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 4:30 pm
11 Sep 2009, 6:00 pm
16 Nov 2006, 12:52 am
U of Alabama Law Prof Alfred Brody, a contributing editor for PropertyProf Blog, has posted Prison Libraries and Black Identity on blackprof. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
This paper first considers the facts of R v Taylor and discusses the decisions of the trial court, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the SCC. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 1:22 pm
Id.; See Taylor v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 4:59 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 4:05 am
”The Cohoes decision, however, implies that light duty could be viewed as a “permissive subject” of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law and ultimately made subject to arbitration under the terms of the agreement. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:29 am
Is such “contracting out” of services a mandatory subject of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Taylor Law? [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 6:09 am
Taylor, 743 F.3d 876 (D.C. [read post]
