Search for: "Board of Education v. King"
Results 81 - 100
of 396
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2020, 3:50 am
In Financial Oversight Board for Puerto Rico 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]
27 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
His high-profile cases include the “trial of the century,” otherwise known as United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 3:59 am
In Ramos v. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
County of Butte v. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 2:30 pm
Slip Op. 01564 (1st Dept., 2020) the Appellate Division held that Family Court properly denied respondent’s request for a credit for the child’s college room and board expenses. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 9:40 am
McBride v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 4:05 am
Forest Service v. [read post]
8 Jan 2020, 7:23 am
“Rights” are discussed the most (43 times) in Roberts’ majority opinion in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 2:19 am
The first is in Rodriguez v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 1:35 pm
We cover accommodation and board for all participants. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 7:03 am
As superintendent, plaintiff was the king of the district. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 9:56 am
The Court said so unanimously in Matal v. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am
[We're moving this up, because we've received an updated version of the program. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:07 am
Yet, in Haidak v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 7:32 am
I could not listen to the substance last night. [read post]
15 Jun 2019, 6:50 pm
Unite Here International Union (National Labor Relations Board) Rincon Mushroom Corporation of America v. [read post]
