Search for: "United States v. Taylor"
Results 841 - 860
of 1,568
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2014, 4:00 am
The First Amendment prohibits a State’s collecting an agency shop fee from an individual on behalf of an employee organization that the individual does not wish to join or supportHarris v Quinn, USSC #11-681, decided June 30, 2014The U.S. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 9:22 am
Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 6:55 am
” On Tuesday, Wells highlighted opinions from the federal District of Oregon in United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
Taylor serves as a board member of Oil States International, Inc. and Tidewater Inc. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998). [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 12:25 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
In Nakkhumpun v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 3:11 pm
June 20, 2000) (same); Taylor v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Both decisions thus relied on the Fourth Circuit’s earlier ruling in Taylor v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 4:28 am
(See Lawrence v. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Court of Appeals deferred to PERB’s expertise with respect to its holding the employer had engaged in an improper employer practice but ruled its remedy was unreasonableTown of Islip v New York State Pub. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 6:40 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 6:08 am
Baker & Taylor In a complaint filed last year in Illinois, EEOC v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 7:17 pm
Lucky 13 further claims that Swift had filed about sixty federal trademark applications with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). [read post]
30 May 2014, 4:40 am
Productions v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 11:49 pm
The judge in Gardener v. [read post]
14 May 2014, 9:27 am
Let’s review an Illinois case from a few years back, United Stationers Supply Co v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 8:05 am
Rev. 21.Caffrey, Denise, United States v. [read post]
7 May 2014, 4:00 am
”The President, with the State Budget Director's approval, then adopted a Regulation that reduced the State's contribution for health insurance premiums not only for employees in State’s several negotiating units that had agreed to the reductions through collective bargaining, but also for some “nonunionized employees” and retirees of the State as the employer. [read post]
1 May 2014, 4:00 am
Make whole any unit employees who retired during or after August 2011 and who have been required to contribute towards the cost of health insurance.* In Lippman v Sewanhaka Central High School District, 66 NY2d 313, the court held that health insurance was not a retirement benefit within the meaning of Article 5, Section 7, of the State Constitution.. [read post]