Search for: "Laws v. State"
Results 4601 - 4620
of 155,480
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Removing a tenured State or municipal employee claimed to have abandonment the position from service
10 Feb 2023, 9:50 am
New York State Civil Service Rule 4 NYCRR 5.3(d), since repealed, permitted the appointing authority of a State department or agency employee to terminate a tenured employee in the Classified Service absent for a period of ten or more days without an explanation by deeming the employee to have resigned from his or her position. [read post]
Removing a tenured State or municipal employee claimed to have abandonment the position from service
10 Feb 2023, 9:50 am
New York State Civil Service Rule 4 NYCRR 5.3(d), since repealed, permitted the appointing authority of a State department or agency employee to terminate a tenured employee in the Classified Service absent for a period of ten or more days without an explanation by deeming the employee to have resigned from his or her position. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 11:29 am
Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kennedy, and by Justice Scalia in all except Parts III and V–B–1.To discuss the case, we have Kristen Osenga, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 11:29 am
Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kennedy, and by Justice Scalia in all except Parts III and V–B–1.To discuss the case, we have Kristen Osenga, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 9:58 am
However, the ruling doesn't mean that former spouses automatically are entitled to a portion of their ex's military retirement pay, and each case is decided according to individual facts and state law. [read post]
24 Nov 2012, 7:14 am
Similarly, the originally private nature of the resources did not prevent them being regarded as State resources within the meaning of Art. 87(1) EC (see, to that effect, Case T‑358/94 Air France v Commission [1996]).In accordance with the case-law, the mere fact that a subsidy scheme benefiting certain economic operators in a given sector was wholly or partially financed by contributions imposed by the public authority and levied on the undertakings concerned was… [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 2:21 pm
The post Utah v. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 3:55 pm
Caroline Mala Corbin (University of Miami School of Law) has posted The Irony of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
With Carpenter v. United States, Supreme Court Edges Fourth Amendment Doctrine into the 21st Century
27 Jun 2018, 12:25 pm
The post With Carpenter v. [read post]
With Carpenter v. United States, Supreme Court Edges Fourth Amendment Doctrine into the 21st Century
27 Jun 2018, 12:25 pm
The post With Carpenter v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and South Dakota v. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 11:48 am
COLORADO CITY FRACKING BANS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW City of Longmont v. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
The legislature repealed Civil Rights Law §50-a [see Chapter 96, Laws of 2020] and made several related amendments to the State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], providing that such changes "shall take effect immediately". [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
The legislature repealed Civil Rights Law §50-a [see Chapter 96, Laws of 2020] and made several related amendments to the State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], providing that such changes "shall take effect immediately". [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 3:00 am
Louie v Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2014 WL 3427387 (D. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
In Raven v. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 1:00 am
” The post Tinker v Des Moines Established First Amendment Rights of Students appeared first on Constitutional Law Reporter. [read post]
9 Oct 2012, 9:16 pm
McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 7:02 am
The Supreme Court last year ruled in District of Columbia v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 10:00 pm
And since this was a “state highway,” and the Towns did not assume any effort, nor had any duty, to maintain same, the AD4 left the dismissal undisturbed.Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, state law [Highway Law § 327] did not require a town to light the road, but affords it the ability to provide for same, should it so choose. [read post]
