Search for: "Bartholomew v. Bartholomew"
Results 21 - 40
of 132
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2020, 5:58 am
Bartholomew, Matthew M. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 6:25 am
In Dohmen v. [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]
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]
21 Apr 2020, 12:52 pm
In City of Columbus v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 9:48 am
State v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 6:32 am
State v. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 5:58 am
Bartholomew are associates at Pepper Hamilton LLP. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 10:43 am
Bartholomew v. [read post]
25 Nov 2018, 8:57 am
Google * YouTube Defeats Defamation Claim in ‘Remove-and-Relocate’ Case–Bartholomew v. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 9:19 am
Google * YouTube Defeats Defamation Claim in ‘Remove-and-Relocate’ Case–Bartholomew v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 6:24 am
The decision, Manti Holdings LLC v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 6:16 am
Halper, Ellen V. [read post]
16 May 2018, 10:21 am
May 15, 2018) Other YouTube Remove-and-Relocate Posts: * YouTube Defeats Defamation Claim in ‘Remove-and-Relocate’ Case–Bartholomew v. [read post]
14 May 2018, 7:13 pm
For a similar recent case from the neighboring state of Lousiana, also involving criticism of a judge during an election campaign, see Bartholomew-Woods v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 5:55 pm
Bartholomew, a circuit split has developed over... [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 4:49 pm
In addition, IPSO published three resolution statements: 18927-17 Dixon v Daily Mirror: 18928-17 Dixon v Daily Express: 18929-17 Dixon v Daily Star: Statements in Open Court and Apologies We have already mentioned the apology of Ben Bradley MP to Jeremy Corbyn. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 8:23 am
In a recent California case, Bartholomew v. [read post]
