Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 241 - 260
of 1,488
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2008, 9:43 pm
In dictum, the Court of Appeal cited a recent SCOTUS case, Taylor v. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 6:09 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 7:12 am
[W]hile Patent Owner’s argument that the United States 'directed and controlled the allegedly infringing activity' is not without relevance, it does not bear directly on the categories identified by the Supreme Court in [Taylor v. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 8:27 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2009, 7:51 am
United States v. [read post]
22 May 2011, 9:22 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 8:50 am
., Appellant v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 4:52 am
”The same is true with respect to Taylor Law contract provisions that adversely impact upon layoff rights vested in employees in the classified service by Sections 80 or 80-a of the Civil Service Law [see Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 1045]. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 4:59 pm
Indeed, in State v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The Taylor Law requires all public employers and employee organizations to negotiate in good faith to determine the terms and conditions of employment of employees in the negotiating unit. 2. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The Taylor Law requires all public employers and employee organizations to negotiate in good faith to determine the terms and conditions of employment of employees in the negotiating unit. 2. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 6:57 am
Many of the arguments dealt with the interpretation of a 1990 Supreme Court case Taylor v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 1:53 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 3:05 pm
United States, No. 06-7517. [read post]
7 Oct 2008, 3:16 pm
Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003). [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
Employee's resignation after being found guilty of disciplinary charges forfeits his or her right to demand arbitrationMatter of the Arbitration between Unit 8251, Local 842, CSEA v City of Troy, 169 AD2d 871 Under the terms of a Taylor Law agreement, an employee against whom disciplinary charges had been filed was entitled to a three step disciplinary proceeding. [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
Unit, Orange County Local 836) (19 NY3d 1066 to require reversal of Supreme Court's judgment. [read post]
21 May 2010, 2:15 pm
United States, No. 09-1408. [read post]
17 Oct 2024, 3:18 am
In his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet v. [read post]
22 Dec 2007, 3:20 am
In United States v. [read post]
