Search for: "State v. Taylor"
Results 1321 - 1340
of 3,051
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2010, 3:41 am
In addition, Civil Service Law Section 209-a.6, a subdivision that is part of the Taylor Law, provides that “In applying this section, fundamental distinctions between private and public employment shall be recognized, and no body of federal or state law applicable wholly or in part to private employment, shall be regarded as binding or controlling precedent. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:01 am
From State v. [read post]
17 Oct 2024, 3:18 am
In his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 10:31 am
" This is only the second time the Third Circuit has relied upon that language; the first time was in Taylor v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 6:42 pm
’ United States v Holman, 314 F.3d 837, 840 (7th Cir.2002). [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 11:58 am
The case Nancy Wells v. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 11:58 am
The case Nancy Wells v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:00 am
Dionisio v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 7:09 am
As the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Taylor v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 3:52 pm
Taylor v. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 9:44 am
App. 2014); Taylor v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 6:17 am
Hosanna-Taylor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 3:12 am
The court said “the simple answer is that, as Chief of a Town police force, [Wade] was not a State employee. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 5:43 pm
Taylor, 529 U. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 7:26 pm
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), which was codified in Court of Chancery Rule 26(b)(3), which states the current iteration of the Delaware work-product rule. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 5:43 pm
Taylor, 529 U. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 4:00 am
See Olson v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 4:00 am
” Holding that Petitioners' interpretation of EO 75 was not plausible, the majority concluded that Petitioners “have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits,” the Appellate Division granted the appeal.* With respect to the State as the employer, employee organization leave has been an issue since the adoption of the Taylor Law. [read post]
