Search for: "Board of Education v. County Board of Education"
Results 841 - 860
of 1,879
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2018, 9:33 am
In Abood 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… [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… [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… [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… [read post]
1 Jun 2006, 6:15 am
Evans v. [read post]
24 Dec 2021, 8:04 am
Related Cases: Williams v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:08 pm
Detroit Board of Education was, in short, a case about federalism and judicial restraint. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 5:40 am
Monroe County Board of Education case as an interpretation of discrimination that notably and correctly focuses on how institutions cause sex-based harm, rather than on whether officials within chosen institutions act with a discriminatory intent. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 7:03 am
Yesterday’s oral argument in The Boeing Company v. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 5:37 am
Educators v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 3:45 am
The employer, however, may not use the counseling memorandum or a performance evaluation to avoid initiating formal disciplinary action against an individual as the Fusco and Irving decisions by the Commissioner of Education demonstrate [Fusco v Jefferson County School District, CEd, 14,396 and Irving v Troy City School District, CEd 14,373]. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 5:14 pm
In addition to her service to Arizona jurisprudence, through her professional associations she served legal education and supported the advancement of women in the legal profession as a member of the Board of the National Association of Women Judges. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 7:15 pm
Patten: Judge Learned Hand, First Amendment ProphetJames WeinsteinChapter 4The Story of West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 8:07 am
The tax imposes a 1% rate on gross receipts for warehouse space and 3.5% on gross receipts for other commercial properties to fund childcare and early education programs. [read post]
27 Aug 2008, 3:31 pm
Underwriters, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2008, 8:23 pm
In August of 2007, The Texas State Board of Education came out firmly against the teaching of Intelligent Design. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 2:20 pm
Paul Travelers v. [read post]
21 Apr 2025, 5:01 am
In this case, the Montgomery County Public School Board approved a set of books for its English curriculum that include LGBT characters. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 7:00 am
This, said the Appellate Division, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination that the employee was guilty of falsifying town records.Ghita v Department of Education of the City of New York2008 NY Slip Op 30706(U), Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 0110481/2007 [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports]The employee challenged an arbitrator’s determination terminating his employment with the New York City Department of… [read post]
