Search for: "U. S. v. Grant"
Results 2861 - 2880
of 3,554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 11:00 am
Twombly, 41SUFFOLK U. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 12:03 pm
S. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 6:56 am
U and V Food would be more [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 10:09 pm
In today’s case (Snow v. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 1:20 am
The CFAA was last amended in 2001 in the U. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 8:36 pm
Underwood, "Road to Nowhere or Jurisprudential U-Turn? [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:15 am
(2) Behar v. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 7:38 am
Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. [read post]
4 May 2011, 5:35 am
VanderWeyst faxed a copy of the warrant to Grant Fields, a Verizon Wireless employee. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 4:17 am
The following examples illustrate the hurdles to pleading a sustainable RICO claim in a business divorce setting: In Daskal v Tyrnauer, 2012 NY Slip Op 52036(U) [Sup Ct Kings County 2012], the plaintiff brought direct and derivative claims against his co-owner in a realty holding LLC and others arising from a realty development project that ultimately led to the construction lender’s foreclosure on the LLC’s realty asset. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 4:18 am
JMW 75 LLC v Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP 2018 NY Slip Op 31945(U) August 10, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156352/2017 Judge: Shlomo S. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 7:27 am
” * Hyman v. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 1:27 pm
__________ The Case Opinion:Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. [read post]
4 Jul 2018, 1:30 pm
U. [read post]
13 Nov 2022, 9:05 pm
S. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 5:08 am
Pozen, Freedom of Information Beyond the Freedom of Information Act, 165 U. [read post]
