Search for: "U. S. v. Little"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 1,525
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2010, 12:06 pm
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 8:00 am
Zbigniew Adwent v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
Louis U. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 6:10 am
House of Representatives following the 2022 midterms, they have shown little interest in substantive legislation, and have instead announced a spate of “investigations” of topics thought likely to be politically useful. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 7:08 am
U. [read post]
6 May 2023, 8:58 am
” Wood 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 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]
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 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]
14 Dec 2009, 5:57 am
Maryland, 442 U. [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 4:54 am
Where a shareholders’ agreement contains a mandatory redemption clause upon the termination of a professional’s employment, a shareholder-employee terminated for any reason whatsoever will have little recourse to challenge the redemption of his or her shares (Laurilliard v McNamee Lochner, P.C., 79 Misc 3d 1220(A) (Sup Ct Albany Co 2023) (discussed here). [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:49 am
Maybe you're happy with everyone knowing all those icky little details.Or maybe you think it's nobody else's business to watch you going in the door at the oncologist's office. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 4:00 am
(S.) v. [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 4:44 am
” Justice Masley’s valuation decision in Quattro Parent LLC v Rakib, 2022 NY Slip Op 30190(U) [Sup Ct, NY County Jan. 14, 2022] is noteworthy for two reasons. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 9:44 am
U. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 7:12 am
Now, in Iancu v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 6:27 am
” 18 U. [read post]
10 Sep 2020, 8:34 am
From a human rights perspective there ought to be little distinction between communities so formed. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 3:30 am
In Cardino v Peek-A-Boo, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 31657(U) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County July 28, 2017], a litigant did his best to try to persuade Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice James Hudson that Sandy made it “impossible” for him to comply with a post-dissolution order to turn over all merchandise of an adult bookstore, appropriately named “Peek-A-Boo, Inc. [read post]
