Search for: "State v. Quinn"
Results 401 - 420
of 888
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2014, 9:02 am
Quinn (each opinion downloads as a pdf). [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court held that state home-care workers cannot be forced to pay union dues in Harris v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 1:00 pm
Quinn, ___ U.S. ___ (6/30/2014), the United States Supreme Court considered "whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 8:42 am
Coakley (Mark Rienzi), and the lawyer for the state of Illinois (who was defending the state’s mandatory union dues program) in Harris v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 7:28 am
In United States Civil Service Commission v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 6:12 am
Many observers thought that the Court's decision in Harris v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 12:40 pm
Quinn POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 12:07 pm
In Abood v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 10:08 am
The Harris v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:18 am
Nonetheless, the Abood ruling survives another day, allowing public-sector unions to breathe a sigh of relief, having averted what could have been a knock-out punch (Harris v Quinn, June 30, 2014, Alito, S). [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 4:00 am
The First Amendment prohibits a State’s collecting an agency shop fee from an individual on behalf of an employee organization that the individual does not wish to join or supportHarris v Quinn, USSC #11-681, decided June 30, 2014The U.S. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 5:07 pm
By Jim Cline In a decision on a case that had presented significant financial and operational important to Public Employee Unions, the United States Supreme Court held this Monday in Harris v Quinn that the Illinois law, as applied to a special class of home health care workers, unconstitutionally imposed a “fair share” dues payment […]The post In Closely Watched Decision, Supreme Court declines to Hold Mandatory Union Dues Clauses Unconstitutional… [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 1:37 pm
[v] Bush v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 11:21 am
In Harris v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 10:25 am
Quinn, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 8:50 am
In Harris v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:44 am
In Lane v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 6:30 am
In Burwell v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 2:13 am
The Court reasoned that the personal assistants were subject to the control of the private patients since the patients maintained control b b hiring, firing, training and supervising of the employee.Harris v Quinn, No. 11-681 (Sp. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:46 pm
Quinn is what the Court did not decide. [read post]
