Search for: "State v. C. S."
Results 2261 - 2280
of 37,716
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2022, 4:00 am
" The Court of Appeals then noted that it "answered that question in the affirmative five years later" in Matter of City of Watertown v State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, 95 NY2d 73 [Watertown], holding that "the procedures for contesting the City's determinations under section 207-c are a mandatory subject of bargaining. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 4:00 am
" The Court of Appeals then noted that it "answered that question in the affirmative five years later" in Matter of City of Watertown v State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, 95 NY2d 73 [Watertown], holding that "the procedures for contesting the City's determinations under section 207-c are a mandatory subject of bargaining. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 4:30 pm
The post Justices order new briefing in <em>Moore v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 5:00 pm
Judge Blackburn cited two cases in support of his authority to enter such an order: United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 8:12 pm
View the article here May be of use to those homeless RSO's in Florida who are forced to live under bridges by the state. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 10:15 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 4:34 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 1:10 pm
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, ESX-C-142-09 (N.J. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 3:47 pm
s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. [read post]
14 Jul 2007, 6:18 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 9:26 pm
In an interesting decision from Judge Larimer in the Western District of New York, United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 9:17 pm
Elliott v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 7:19 am
Ray v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 7:19 pm
C. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 11:49 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 11:46 am
State v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 5:47 am
State v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:01 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 12:55 pm
§ 304(c).The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating that the district court had gone against the express language of § 304(c)(5), Congress's intent of protecting authors, and the lack of any language transferring the right of termination in the agreement. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 12:37 pm
Thomas [Supreme Court of the United States via SCOTUSblog] Maples v. [read post]
