Search for: "State v. Taylor "
Results 2321 - 2340
of 3,341
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2011, 5:25 pm
” He also referred to the Flood v Times case, on its way to the Supreme Court. [read post]
3 May 2011, 10:20 am
Supp.2d 245, 258-59 & n.9 (E.D.N.Y. 1999); Taylor v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 9:50 am
Taylor v Taylor 2011 NY Slip Op 03049 Decided on April 12, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department The supreme court denied husband’s motion for a downward modification of child support and maintenance and held husband in contempt for failure to pay arrears. [read post]
2 May 2011, 3:55 am
Mandatory subjects of negotiationsCarmel PBA v PERB, 267 AD2d 858 The Carmel PBA case involves a “legal interpretation” made by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB]. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 7:14 am
” Taylor v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 6:59 am
At the ensuing hearing, the husband stated that his yearly income had dropped from $475,000 to $466,7 [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 12:10 pm
I n the chief Pennsylvania case it cites, Taylor v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
In contrast, the withdrawal of charges filed against an individual does not toll the statute of limitations insofar as “refilling such charges” at a later date is concerned. * The statute of limitations for State employees designated “managerial or confidential” within the meaning of the Taylor Law is one year except where the charges, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime, in which case the one-year limitation would not apply. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:29 am
” Although a state supreme court justice sustained PERB’s ruling, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that “the broad scope of the Commissioner’s authority to approve cooperative services contracts could not overcome the Taylor Law’s mandate for public sector employment collective bargaining [Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 260 AD2d 699]. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 3:27 am
” * The New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] has held that negotiating days off for religious observances was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining [CSEA v Eastchester UFSD, 29 PERB 3041]. . [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 4:56 am
Weed claimed he was entitled to such leave under the terms of “Article 20” of the then controlling Taylor Law agreement. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 3:06 pm
This requirement was stated to be independent of national law. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
In the criminal case United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:00 am
Taylor. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 6:55 pm
Citation: Summa v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 4:52 am
A State Supreme Court judge dismissed Taylor’s petition on the ground that he did not have any “clear legal right to the relief sought against [district], and therefore [an order in the nature of] mandamus* was not available to him as a remedy. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 3:42 am
Work related investigationsCerrone v Cahill, USDC, NDNY, 84 F. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:29 am
State v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 12:12 pm
Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174, 178-79, 759 P.2d 455 (1988); Taylor v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:37 am
Model Rules of Professional Conduct: rules may vary by states. [read post]
