Search for: "State v. Mendez-Mendez"
Results 201 - 220
of 296
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Such was the case in Mallon v Parness, 167 A.D.2d 614. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 4:15 am
Tenure by estoppelMatter of Andrews v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2010 NY Slip Op 32963(U), October 15, 2010, Supreme Court, New York County. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 4:22 am
Mendez of the U.S. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 12:20 pm
Chao, 463 F.Supp.2d 184, 190-91 (D.Conn.2006); Oppenheimer Mendez v. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 6:24 am
State v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 4:23 am
Constitution Daily looks at Peruta v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
"First Circuit: Mendez-Matos v. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 7:54 am
Germany, Jr. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 3:38 am
The leading case on this point: Roulett v Town of Hempstead Civil Service Commission, 40 AD2d 611. [read post]
20 Jun 2015, 7:56 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
20 Jun 2015, 5:53 am
Ibid.; see also Wilkinson v. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 7:34 am
MENDEZ, Appellee. 3rd District. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 8:34 am
In Tennessee v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 7:35 am
Board of Education there was Mendez v. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 7:01 pm
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
15 Feb 2020, 6:56 am
Feb. 4, 2020) and Mendez v. [read post]
4 Apr 2017, 3:45 am
Mendez, Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
” However, employees of a political subdivision of the State are not within the ambit of §80-a of the Civil Service Law which applies only to the suspension or demotion of employees of the State as the employer upon the abolition or reduction of State positions in the non-competitive class. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
Courts in New York State have consistently recognized the importance of using progressive discipline.Rulings by the New York State Supreme Court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, suggest an employer’s in assigning severe penalties for certain “first offenses” may not survive judicial review. [read post]
20 May 2009, 12:28 pm
Case returned for evidentiary hearing on the rule 3 because (everyone now) the record does not conclusively refute the allegations in the petition.And Judge Marissa Tinkler Mendez re-joins the wall of shame in Palomares v. [read post]
