Search for: "Tate v. Tate"
Results 81 - 100
of 522
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2016, 10:16 am
Beam v. [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 5:51 pm
The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions… [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 10:07 am
., its response to the Epic Games v. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 9:13 pm
Here are the facts of Tate v. [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 5:51 pm
The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions… [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 5:52 pm
The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions… [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 5:51 pm
The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions… [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 5:51 pm
The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions… [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 5:52 pm
The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions… [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 7:07 am
Tate. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 4:05 am
In Business Leaders In Christ v. [read post]
18 May 2015, 6:40 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Tort Law Opinions Body: AC36279 - Tate v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 12:00 am
The case was Shelley v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 9:39 am
By Michael Kiely and Phillip Tate True to their promise, the California Redevelopment Association, or CRA, and the California League of Cities, or CLC, petitioned the California Supreme Court on July 15, 2011 for a writ of mandate challenging the Legislature's adoption of ABX1 26, providing for elimination of California redevelopment agencies (RDAs), and ABX1 27, exempting from elimination any RDA that agrees to make its share of a $1.7 billion voluntary contribution of its revenues… [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 9:39 am
By Michael Kiely and Phillip Tate True to their promise, the California Redevelopment Association, or CRA, and the California League of Cities, or CLC, petitioned the California Supreme Court on July 15, 2011 for a writ of mandate challenging the Legislature's adoption of ABX1 26, providing for elimination of California redevelopment agencies (RDAs), and ABX1 27, exempting from elimination any RDA that agrees to make its share of a $1.7 billion voluntary contribution of its revenues… [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 5:23 pm
Tate, 64 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2007); United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 6:17 am
Tate, 2012 U.S. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 5:20 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 3:17 pm
FCC v. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 1:00 pm
The City of Tate appeals. [read post]
