Search for: "Hand v. Board of Education"
Results 401 - 420
of 1,494
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… [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… [read post]
2 May 2012, 3:35 am
Board of Education, used the arguments he developed for Mendez v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 11:02 am
Board of Education or how we got to Obergefell v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 8:13 pm
Board of Education, Rudenstine points out that a majority of voters favored mandatory segregation based on race at the time. [read post]
11 Mar 2021, 2:07 am
The Enlarged Board sees no reasonto revise this assessment. [read post]
24 Dec 2021, 8:04 am
Related Cases: Williams v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
For starters, the statistical expert was unqualified — having only a bachelor’s degree, having no specialized education in the use of statistics in employment discrimination (until becoming involved in the case at hand), and having never testified as an expert witness. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Following the AG's decision, the CJEU has finally considered the question of offensive trademarks and handed down their judgment earlier this year.The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned an application to register the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163), which is the name of a German comedy film produced by Constantin. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Following the AG's decision, the CJEU has finally considered the question of offensive trademarks and handed down their judgment earlier this year.The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned an application to register the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163), which is the name of a German comedy film produced by Constantin. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 9:57 am
Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Following the AG's decision, the CJEU has finally considered the question of offensive trademarks and handed down their judgment earlier this year.The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned an application to register the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163), which is the name of a German comedy film produced by Constantin. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Following the AG's decision, the CJEU has finally considered the question of offensive trademarks and handed down their judgment earlier this year.The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned an application to register the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163), which is the name of a German comedy film produced by Constantin. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 1:49 pm
Has the permissive language of “may” referred to the in the SCC decision in CBC v. [read post]
10 Oct 2015, 4:15 pm
Beaudry v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 4:25 am
The decision by the Court of Appeals in Professional, Clerical, Technical Employees Association v Buffalo Board of Education [2 Rulings, #64 and #65], 90 N.Y.2d 364, provides some important insights as to the application of this concept. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
Employee, on the other hand, said that no settlement had been reached. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
Employee, on the other hand, said that no settlement had been reached. [read post]
30 Nov 2013, 4:06 pm
., Appellees. 3rd District.Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Administrative law -- Counties -- School boards -- Exceptional student education -- Due process hearing -- Statute providing for award of attorney's fees to prevailing party in administrative proceedings under chapter 120 does not apply to proceeding brought under section 1003.57, which is controlled by procedures outlined in section 1003.57(1)(b)A. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 5:19 am
Chiras v. [read post]
