Search for: "Taylor v. Taylor" Results 3381 - 3400 of 4,755
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jan 2011, 10:39 am by Michael O'Hear
When the Court first embraced the categoric approach in Taylor v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 9:45 am by Paul Karlsgodt
  (See Guest Post from Eric Jon Taylor and Jon Chally at CAFA Law Blog for more on the first decision and this October 20 CAB entry on the second decision). [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 4:47 pm by Record on Appeal
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 by Alfred Brophy
 One of them, for instance, is 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 by TSLP
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]
17 Dec 2010, 7:48 am by emagraken
Taylor, J.A. for the Court quoted the well-known statement of principle of Lord Atkinson in Toronto Ry. [read post]