Search for: "Doe v. Doe" Results 3601 - 3620 of 137,067
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jul 2023, 1:04 pm by Larry
That does not mean that Royal will get back the antidumping duties it paid. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 9:49 am
Yesterday, the First Department in People v Anonymous, 2007 NY Slip Op 07069 held that this option to be resentenced does not apply to those convicted of conspiracy to commit drug offenses. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 3:24 am
In contrast to removing a school official, the Commissioner of Education does not have the authority to direct the removal of a school employeeParent of Student v East Meadow UFSD, Commissioner of Education Decision 15,907The parents of a student at East Meadow UFSD asked the Commissioner to remove two school employees from their respective positions for alleged “willful misconduct and neglect of duty. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 4:00 am
In contrast to removing a school official, the Commissioner of Education does not have the authority to direct the removal of a school employeeParent of Student v East Meadow UFSD, Commissioner of Education Decision 15,907The parents of a student at East Meadow UFSD asked the Commissioner to remove two school employees from their respective positions for alleged "willful misconduct and neglect of duty. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 3:30 am
Applying the faithless servant doctrine, employer does not have to pay benefits to former employees found guilty of embezzling William Floyd Union Free School Dist. v Wright, 61 AD3d 856The William Floyd Union Free School District asked Supreme Court to relieve it of its contractual obligation to provide postretirement health and dental insurance benefits to Daniel C. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 12:10 pm by admin
In Humphrey v Sears Roebuck, for example, employee Kathleen Humphrey injured her foot while moving stock. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 12:17 pm by Tom Mayo
One of the most eagerly awaited opinions yet to be released by SCOTUS is -- or was (see below) -- Moyle v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 10:55 am by Jim Gerl
Does this mean that the Department will be targeting the achievement gap between student with disabilities and their non-disabled peers? [read post]