Search for: "Early v. Doe"
Results 7461 - 7480
of 11,694
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2011, 5:25 am
For example, in Visto Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 12:29 pm
Merial argued that this was wrong because the Patents Act 1977 does not require that the patent provide for specific examples. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 6:03 am
Arguing for state and local officials in Arizona 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]
26 Mar 2018, 3:23 pm
McDonald v. [read post]
9 May 2022, 8:51 am
Freed from the background of the 1914 act, the judge adopted a judicial philosophy popular in the early 1970s. [read post]
5 Nov 2024, 2:43 pm
The RNC incorrectly relied on a law that does not apply to this situation, but rather to drop boxes, which were supposed to be, and in fact were, closed at the conclusion of early voting last Friday. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 5:16 am
Wikipedia has a post that does a good job of explaining what the border search exception is and what it authorizes. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:13 am
Employers may monitor their employees’ social media use as long as it does not violate any laws or ethics rules. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 10:23 am
This post does not criticize or endorse that argument. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 4:00 am
Last month, in Kagan v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 4:10 pm
Stetson v. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 3:09 am
See Frey v. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 7:00 am
In United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 8:28 pm
Spoons, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 8:10 am
In Matter of Karen P. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 5:17 am
” Smith v. [read post]
