Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 501 - 520
of 1,560
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2012, 11:34 am
In the briefs, FI&C relied on its success in Taylor v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 7:27 am
Competing union interestsBuffalo CSD v Local 264, 270 AD2d 814Suppose an arbitration award in favor of an employee in one collective bargaining unit adversely affects an employee of the same employer in another collective bargaining unit. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 6:33 am
Today in the Community we are discussing Arizona v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 8:30 pm
Taylor [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 2:20 pm
[See, also, Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
The United States solicitor general represents the federal government before the U.S. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 11:31 am
The NWPR was enacted during the Trump administration and represents the EPA’s latest attempt to define the term “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”). [read post]
8 Jan 2020, 7:20 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. [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]
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 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]
8 May 2010, 10:45 am
Employees, Inc. 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]
27 Jul 2017, 4:38 pm
In one recent case, Bollea v. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 11:17 am
ICYMI: Last Weekend on Lawfare Jacques Singer-Emery and Patrick McDonnell assessed recent developments at the military commission in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 7:01 am
Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in 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]
