Search for: "State v. Taylor "
Results 2421 - 2440
of 3,341
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2011, 12:15 pm
Taylor Are you a parent corporation with a subsidiary that does business with a state or local government? [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 12:14 pm
Carrier/Kreiner v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 5:03 pm
A copy of the rejection motion can be found here.Anchor Blue is being represented in the bankruptcy cases by the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 12:57 am
[Contract provisions agreed upon in the course of collective negotiations pursuant to the Taylor Law cannot not override a statutory mandate.] [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 10:39 am
When the Court first embraced the categoric approach in Taylor v. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 6:21 am
") AC30757 Concurring and Dissenting - State v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 9:45 am
(See CAB entry dated March 2) March 31 – The Supreme Court holds that states may not regulate the types of claims that may be filed as class actions in the federal courts, in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 4:47 pm
Yesterday, the Hawaii Supreme Court granted cert in a tax case styled CompUSA Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 3:50 am
Determining membership in a negotiating unit for the purposes of collective bargainingRockland County v Federation of Teachers Local 1817, 275 AD2d 413Clearly the incumbents of positions in the negotiating unit are covered by collective bargaining contracts negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law.Is an agreement between the parties to include a particular individual in the negotiating unit if the position filled by that individual is not included in the negotiating unit enforceable? [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 1:45 pm
One of them, for instance, is United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 8:13 am
See Taylor v. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 6:09 pm
" Motion to Suppress evidence of refusal was granted.Case Excerpts"The Florida Supreme Court ruled in State v. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 9:55 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 11:19 am
See United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 4:15 am
See, for example, City of Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2 104, a case addressing a conflict between a Taylor Law contract provision and the Civil Service Law with regard to the layoff rights of employees. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 4:47 pm
The back page editorial is the worst; only Phil Taylor ever gives due regard to what might be considered the opposition view. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 2:55 am
Criminal investigations and the Taylor lawNew York City v Uniformed Fire Officers Asso., 95 NY2d 273With increasing frequency, procedures addressing employee rights in the course of an employer-initiated investigation are being included in Taylor Law agreements. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:01 am
Toomey, citing School District 6 v NYSHRB, 35 NY2d 371, said that such a personnel policy, even if the product of negotiations under [the Taylor Law] would violate the State’s Human Rights Law and is therefore a prohibited subject of negotiations.* See Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 6:41 am
"Another element to consider: the impact the Taylor Law. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 7:48 am
Caslavsky, 45 B.C.A.C. 62, and stated the following: A more recent case from this Court along similar lines is Brucks et al. v. [read post]
