Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 441 - 460
of 1,443
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2022, 2:07 pm
Taylor (Tribal Courts; Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act) Weiss v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 5:59 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 7:05 am
West, Member of Congress and Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army (Ret.), in Support of Petitioner Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc., and Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Petitioner Brief for the Louis D. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 6:17 pm
See United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 9:01 am
United States (on circuits courts’ power to enhance criminal sentences sua sponte) No. 06-7517, Irizarry v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 11:21 am
United States, 459 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1972); see also, Black 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]
13 Mar 2007, 5:07 pm
This summary accompanies the oral argument video:Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana certified the following questions of Indiana state law for the Indiana Supreme Court's consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on February 22, 2006: 1. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:25 am
This has more recently been reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 12:49 pm
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week in Herb Reed Enterprises LLC v. [read post]
31 Dec 2017, 11:01 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 4:00 am
Of note, the Alberta Court relied on legal developments in the United States in its decision. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 4:15 am
Demand for premium pay where union cannot negotiate a disciplinary procedure a mandatory subject of collective bargainingMatter of City of New York v New York State Public Employment Relations Board, 2008 NY Slip Op 52693(U), Decided on January 18, 2008, Supreme Court, Albany County, Judge Henry F. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 11:49 am
Taylor v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:52 pm
Other courtsin the United States, in deciding similar issues, have basically stated that equity (unjust enrichment) may provide hope for some compensation to the party whose cells have been utilized by researchers. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 3:00 am
See United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 3:00 am
See, e.g., Taylor v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 3:00 am
See, e.g., Taylor v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 4:17 pm
In a 6-5 opinion (United States v. [read post]
