Search for: "Early v King"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,039
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2021, 6:30 am
If I were to include a single additional case from a court, I would include one from a federal trial court rather than the Supreme Court: future Justice William Woods’s United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 1:54 pm
Consider, for example, Riggs 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]
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]
8 Dec 2017, 9:03 am
[I didn't take notes early on, sorry, but Prof. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 7:24 am
I do not see commentary definitively hailing this as a significant change in approach to the liability of platforms, who have previously enjoyed quite generous safe harbours under legislation dating back to the early days of the internet. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 6:05 am
District Court (Eastern District of Michigan) in the King v. [read post]
18 Aug 2007, 6:50 am
That would mean that Gibbons v. [read post]
10 May 2015, 4:58 pm
Fountainebleau Corp., May 7, 2015, King, R.). [read post]
22 Jan 2021, 5:00 am
In Colgrove v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 4:00 am
Thomas says the following about Brown v. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 8:31 am
What the Court said in Galloway v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 9:18 pm
In my previous post I already said that this case--the biggest and highest-profile one in the history of the UK and one of the most important antitrust cases the world has ever seen--could further delay the Optis Wireless v. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 9:10 am
(Lex Machina) Who will the Supreme Court decide for in King v. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 7:10 am
Tugendhat J applied the familiar principles set out by the Court of Appeal in King v Telegraph [2004] EMLR 23, and the “similar fact” principles from O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 AC 534, see [11-12]. [read post]
3 Jul 2022, 7:15 am
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 7:14 am
NTBB is trying to incite some collective action from the employees in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office:Please photograph every bed bug bite you get. [read post]
14 Dec 2021, 5:29 am
So we summarize one case, Mayrink v. [read post]
