Search for: "State v. Taylor"
Results 961 - 980
of 3,051
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2010, 12:33 pm
These four Michigan Supreme Court justices - Justice Young (up for election this November), along with Justice Corrigan, Markman and Taylor - essentially created an entirely new auto law in this state with Kreiner. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 2:37 pm
Burwell v. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 5:08 pm
Similar to its federal counterpart, Utah Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that (1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. [read post]
25 May 2010, 8:30 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 4:08 am
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times weighs in on Kerry v. [read post]
5 May 2021, 6:25 am
id=1497436 12:45 – 1:00: Opening (Lillian Alvernaz, Indian Law Section Chair; James Taylor, Criminal Law Section Chair; Sam Alpert, State Bar of Montana) 1:00 – 2:45: The Death Penalty in State & Federal Courts Panelists: Michael Donahoe, Deputy Federal Defender, Federal Defenders of MontanaSK Rossi, Owner, Central House Strategies Gary Mitchell, AttorneySession Moderator: James Taylor, Managing Attorney,… [read post]
13 May 2009, 3:03 am
The most important opinion generated during the case is here: United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 5:53 am
And 75(v) cannot be taken away. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 3:00 am
Fogle v. [read post]
8 Nov 2006, 2:29 pm
In two prior cases, Taylor v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 3:00 am
”***In Conetta, State Supreme Court Judge Lockman suggested that if a school district wishes to stop granting tenure, it could make such a demand in the course of collective negotiations authorized by Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, the Taylor Law [read post]
5 Jan 2019, 8:29 am
* Chanel, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
Suppose that NFIB v. [read post]
7 Dec 2024, 1:12 pm
Six years after Richards, the court in United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 3:41 pm
ShareThe argument Tuesday in Cantero v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:02 am
Henry v. [read post]
7 May 2016, 7:01 am
The style of the case is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 3:50 am
"The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that the County was under no contractual obligation to provide [Handy] with health insurance and, accordingly, it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in terminating that benefit.The Handy decision should be contrasted with two other retiree benefits cases: Della Rocco v City of Schenectady and Andriano v City of Schenectady.The Schenectady cases differed in that they concerned executive action as opposed to legislative action and… [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]
