Search for: "McGuire v. McGuire"
Results 201 - 220
of 429
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Oct 2019, 7:00 am
In addition, tenure may be acquired in consideration of certain military service performed during a probationary period or by other lawful process.York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, sets 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,… [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 7:00 am
In addition, tenure may be acquired in consideration of certain military service performed during a probationary period or by other lawful process.York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, sets 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,… [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 2:58 am
See generally DeAngelis v. [read post]
26 Jul 2009, 2:53 pm
In SEC v. [read post]
20 May 2012, 5:06 am
(See McGuire Home Aff. [read post]
14 May 2018, 6:46 am
McGuire v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 8:05 pm
“Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes” [Obsidian Finance Corp. v. [read post]
10 May 2009, 7:18 am
McGuire, 2009 U.S. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 8:24 am
Arkansas, to Yeager v. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 3:20 am
Finally, 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 of… [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 3:06 pm
In Luu v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 6:01 pm
Co. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 8:37 am
Shults Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville 08a0579n.06 McGuire v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 12:41 am
Although the Appellate Division noted that Garnes "was terminable without a hearing and without a statement of the reason for his dismissal," the court, citing York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 and Matter of Johnson v Kelly, 35 AD3d 297, said the Garnes failed to demonstrate that his termination was in bad faith, unlawful, or for an impermissible reason. [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]
28 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
In the 2008 case of Baze v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:09 am
"It would have been more accurate had the appointing authority indicated that there were 25 days remaining in the employee's probationary period and that although he had completed his minimum period of probation, he had not yet attained tenure in the position and thus the employee, although appointed to the position as a permanent employee, was not entitled to a Civil Service Law §75 pretermination hearing or an equivalent disciplinary procedure set out in the controlling… [read post]
14 Jan 2025, 3:27 pm
Book ReviewAnastasiia Kyrylenko reviewed the book “Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Rights and Arbitration,” edited by Simon Klopschinski and Mary-Rosy McGuire (Edward Elgar, 2024). [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 10:32 am
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a lethal injection drug protocol in Baze v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:09 am
"It would have been more accurate had the appointing authority indicated that there were 25 days remaining in the employee's probationary period and that although he had completed his minimum period of probation, he had not yet attained tenure in the position and thus the employee, although appointed to the position as a permanent employee, was not entitled to a Civil Service Law §75 pretermination hearing or an equivalent disciplinary procedure set out in the controlling… [read post]
