Search for: "IN RE GEE MINORS"
Results 41 - 49
of 49
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
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]
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]
10 Nov 2007, 10:07 pm
Gee Jon, 211 P. 676 (Nev. 1923)..............3In re Storti, 60 N.E. 210 (Mass. 1901) ..................2 Taylor v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm
” Much of protection probably took place because Selikoff’s testifying took place in the past before electronic files of transcripts could circulate rapidly, and even minor cases were posted to internet databases. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 3:56 pm
The King (1914); the federal nature of Canada (see the cases referred to by the dissent in Patriation Reference (1981); section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Provincial Judges Reference); or the constitution generally (Reference re Alberta Statutes (1938). [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 2:21 pm
Perhaps one can be brief if it involves a minor case with a short witness but it is otherwise unworkable and bad advice. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 9:05 am
Gee, Graham Gibbs, Francis H. [read post]
