Search for: "State v. Taylor "
Results 2381 - 2400
of 3,341
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2011, 9:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 8:42 am
”Concluding that collective bargaining over police disciplinary matters was prohibited, without exception, Supreme Court found that PERB's decision was affected by an error of law and granted the City’s petition challenging PERB’s ruling.The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s holding, explaining that “Although strong state public policy favors collective bargaining, there exists a "competing policy … favoring strong disciplinary… [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 6:19 am
Supreme Court indicated in Connick v Myers, 461 US 138, constitutional free speech rights are not implicated when only matters of a personal interest to the individual, in contrast to matters of public concern, are involved.. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 1:39 pm
EPA is compelled to do so by the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 8:49 am
With respect to the arbitrary and unrealistic time deadlines, the authors look for support in DeLaune v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:15 am
& Taylor Rest. v New York State Liq. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 3:49 am
Negotiating administrative procedures to administer General Municipal Law Sections 207-a and 207-cRiverhead v Foote, State Sup. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 9:49 pm
(IPKat) The fundamental freedom of furnishings ECJ copyright law reference from Bundesgerichtshof (1709 Blog) General Court annuls OHIM’s decision finding likelihood of confusion – ANN TAYLOR LOFT and LOFT(Class 46) General Court confirms likelihood of confusion – Fribo v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:03 pm
In today’s case (Toukaev v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
The plaintiff also advanced Arkansas state pharmacy regulations, but none of these created any duty of pharmacists to warn either patients or prescribing physicians. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 am
Supreme Court London Borough of Hounslow v Powell [2011] UKSC 8 (23 February 2011) Forsyth, R v [2011] UKSC 9 (23 February 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Daley- Murdock, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 161 (23 February 2011) Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162 (23 February 2011) Berezovsky v Abramovich [2011] EWCA Civ 153 (23 February 2011) 007… [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 4:00 pm
Superior Court, 7 Cal.3d 861 (1972) and Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 9:27 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 8:01 am
As stated earlier, Mr. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 2:43 am
There is one decision in the files of Plain English Legal Publications addressing this question, at least peripherally -- Division of Military and Naval Affairs v PERB, 103 AD2d 876. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:13 am
The case of Taylor v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 8:47 pm
Moses Taylor Hospital, 2010 WL 4357308 (Lacka. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 10:00 am
The court made it clear that even under Baker & Taylor, an in-state purchaser who uses goods in this State is subject to the excise use tax. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 7:56 pm
LEXIS 2578 (9th Cir 2/8/2011) (double checking as it appears we may have already covered this decision a few editions back) Steven Richard Taylor v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 8:19 am
Moore Lincoln Boulevard, PO Box 249 Shawneetown, Illinois 62984-0249 Phone: 618/269-3140 Fax: 618/269-4324 Greene V. [read post]
