Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 481 - 500
of 1,443
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
22 Nov 2017, 2:51 am
Those rules were set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in May, 2017, in the published opinion Taylor v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 10:45 am
Employees, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
”Citing Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York v PERB, 6 NY3d 563 and Town of Wallkill v CSEA, Town of Wallkill Police Department Unit, 19 NY3d 1066, the court said “as the [Nassau] County Legislature expressly committed disciplinary authority over the Nassau County Police Department to the Commissioner of Police, collective bargaining over disciplinary matters was prohibited. [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]
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]
27 Jul 2017, 4:38 pm
In one recent case, Bollea v. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 7:01 am
Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 8:29 am
Bolinger, et al v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 9:46 am
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 9:59 am
See United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 8:51 am
The Honorable Judge William Fletcher Taylor-ed to a T.Menendez v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 11:51 am
United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990) and United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:34 pm
See United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 7:45 am
State v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 7:28 am
Taylor, 465 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2006); Darby v. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 12:00 am
In Perez v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
United States. [read post]
30 Jan 2025, 7:42 am
In the longest running game of legal pong in years in the United States, the Supreme Court entered the fray in the battle over enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) requirements on disclosure of ownership with FinCEN. [read post]
8 Nov 2006, 2:29 pm
United States and Shepard v. [read post]
