Search for: "TAYLOR v. TAYLOR"
Results 2861 - 2880
of 4,257
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2011, 8:58 am
The district argued that PERB had exclusive jurisdiction over such issues.The Commissioner ruled that his disposition of the appeal considered matters unrelated to the Taylor Law and thus his dismissal of Fusco’s appeal and deferral to PERB was not required.In addition, the district asked the Commissioner for permission to submit two additional documents it claimed addressed substantive issues related to Fusco’s conduct after it had filed its answer to Fusco’s petition:1. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 7:27 am
Failed to comply with the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association v Buffalo Board of Education, 90 NY2d 364.In PCTEA v Buffalo, the Court of Appeals held that no strong public policy prohibits an appointing authority from agreeing through collective negotiations to give promotional preference to certain members on an eligible list where a probationary period precedes their permanent appointment. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 11:56 am
Taylor, 618 N.E.2d 518, 519-22 (Ill. [read post]
24 Jan 2021, 4:38 pm
Lane, V. [read post]
22 Oct 2017, 4:16 pm
The trial in the case of Mark Lewis Law Ltd & Anor v Taylor Hampton Solicitors Ltd & Anor will begin in the High Court this week. [read post]
2 May 2010, 9:01 am
One case (Parker v. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 8:14 am
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cummings v. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
Taylor .v Posey, No. 1042-22-4, 2023 WL 5021240, at *3 (Va. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 9:13 am
Taylor and Donaldson v. [read post]
10 Dec 2020, 3:21 pm
New York courts may “‘impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential’” (see, Matter of Taylor v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:24 am
Taylor) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 collision. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:13 am
The case of Taylor v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 6:59 pm
Leyva, 513 F.2d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 1975); In re: Grand Jury Proceedings, Taylor v. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 1:22 pm
Hunt v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 7:21 am
The Tribunal ruled that the Code governs Internet postings made about coworkers, and that Kulczycki’s ‘dirty Mexican” post violated Section 5(2): In Taylor-Baptiste v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 7:55 am
In this week’s case (Nicholls v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 10:00 pm
V; see also Maryland v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 10:00 pm
V; see also Maryland v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 5:07 am
” In David Scott Detrich v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 12:29 pm
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). [read post]
