Search for: "Taylor v. Parks"
Results 61 - 80
of 313
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2020, 8:00 am
Taylor 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]
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]
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]
19 Mar 2020, 9:55 am
State v. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 8:00 am
Keck v. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 8:00 am
Doe v. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 8:00 am
Kinch v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 5:08 am
State v. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 11:12 am
In Taylor v. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 11:12 am
In Taylor v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 8:00 am
Taylor v. [read post]
14 Aug 2019, 5:34 am
Prior to Opex Realty, tenants generally relied on Ivy Hill Park Apts. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 4:05 pm
On 22 and 23 July 2019 the same judge heard the trial in the case of Fentiman v Marsh. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 11:18 am
Wayne Taylor provided a strong rebuttal of the attack on IP in the name of drug prices.TrademarkKat Eleonora Rosati summarised the opinion of AG Bokek to annul the General Court’s judgement in T‑69/17. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 8:00 am
Wiser v. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 4:26 pm
Edmonton Northlands, 2019 ABCA 229 the Alberta Court of Appeal held that a libel claim by 19 parking cashiers dismissed in October 2015 can proceed. [read post]
21 May 2019, 12:34 pm
This longstanding practice has been presumed lawful until recently,1 when the Sixth Circuit issued a misguided decision—Taylor v. [read post]
10 May 2019, 9:48 am
And in Taylor v. [read post]
