Search for: "U.S. v. Chandler*"
Results 101 - 120
of 193
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2023, 1:50 pm
Joshua Ray, White-Collar Criminal Prosecutions in the U.S. and U.K. [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]
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]
9 Jun 2013, 5:48 pm
Lightner, 319 U.S. 561 (1943). [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm
Jay Plager, Circuit Judge, U.S. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 1:05 pm
Mitchell v. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 8:00 am
Cairns v. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 10:15 am
” You can access today’s order of the U.S. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 3:50 pm
” -USA v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 2:56 pm
Partnership v. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 6:15 am
The U.S. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 9:20 am
U.S. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
U.S. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 6:52 am
U.S. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 9:32 am
Further complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 6:37 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 12:39 pm
Department of Homeland Security (No. 11-604) and Judicial Watch v. [read post]
