Search for: "Works v. State"
Results 8921 - 8940
of 60,521
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2012, 7:18 pm
State of Tennessee v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 3:55 am
Unfair labor practices - protected activitiesCSEA Local 1000 v PERB, 267 AD2d 935 CSEA appealed a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] that the Holbrook Fire District did not commit an improper employer practice when it disciplined one of its employees, Jason Feinberg. [read post]
9 Oct 2004, 3:46 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 4:00 am
State v. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 4:50 am
Vacha v. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 8:01 am
Cain (2012) and Connick v. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
In Bissonnette v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 5:12 am
He also noted that[e]ven Tolliver's trial counsel stated in an affidavit: `I did not know that Ms. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 10:50 pm
See Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 3:43 am
In Maddox v. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 12:19 pm
State, 885 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2004); McLin v. [read post]
13 May 2016, 6:22 am
Zier v. [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 2:37 am
United States on behalf of Pittsburgh Tank & Tower, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2007, 2:27 pm
Dave works at Dreamer's, an adult business in Kennedale, TX. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 1:04 pm
This very paradigm rendered a non-compete unenforceable in Dawson v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 3:00 am
While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. [read post]
16 Dec 2023, 9:36 am
More recently, David Super has emerged as the academy’s leading critic of the “Convention of States” campaign and of Article V convention drives in general. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 1:32 pm
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 7:34 pm
State v. [read post]
20 Aug 2016, 1:00 am
Although the employee’s state-law claims and claims against individual defendants were dismissed, the court found more than enough reason to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss her Title VII claims of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation (Conforti v. [read post]
