Search for: "U.S. v. Parks"
Results 4141 - 4160
of 4,774
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
23 Sep 2018, 4:07 pm
On 15 August 2015 HHJ Parkes QC handed down judgment in the curious libel and misrepresentation case of Burki v Seventy Thirty Ltd [2018] EWHC 2151 (QB). [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm
On 16 February 2015, HHJ Parkes QC handed down judgment in the libel case of Rai v Bholowasia [2015] EWHC B2 (QB) (heard 19-23, and 26 to 27 January 2015). [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 7:59 am
State v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 11:39 am
In Toyukak v. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 7:24 am
Although the U.S. [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 12:44 pm
That same day the court also decided in Minoru Yasui v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 1:34 pm
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 9:05 pm
The ADA’s Power to Reduce Overdose Deaths in Prison September 22, 2022 | Erica V. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 1:58 am
U.S. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 10:00 am
The Court noted an intervening U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 8:39 am
Mortimer, 135 N.J. 517, 525, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 970, 115 S. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 9:00 am
(UK Channel Management Ltd v E! [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 11-204, 567 U.S. --- (June 18, 2012) and FCC v. [read post]
8 Oct 2018, 6:53 am
Dockless Bikes v. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 11:01 pm
Supreme Court's decision in PARK'N FLY, INC. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 6:17 am
Illinois, the U.S. [read post]
