Search for: "Taylor v. State"
Results 1021 - 1040
of 3,329
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2010, 10:39 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 6:33 pm
Supreme Court's statement in State Farm v. [read post]
21 Oct 2020, 9:36 am
Murphy, Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Work of the International Law Commission International DecisionsMaiko Meguro, State of the Netherlands 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]
26 Aug 2012, 2:56 pm
Taylor V. [read post]
25 May 2010, 8:30 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 3:00 am
Fogle v. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 4:08 am
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times weighs in on Kerry v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 2:37 pm
Burwell v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 5:53 am
And 75(v) cannot be taken away. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
Suppose that NFIB v. [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]
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]
23 Sep 2009, 10:58 am
While I can get through my day without recalling Taylor v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:02 am
Henry 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]
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]
26 Mar 2014, 1:31 pm
In State of Tennessee v. [read post]
