Search for: "Grant v. Board of Retirement"
Results 121 - 140
of 1,024
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2021, 11:03 am
Cheers to her upcoming retirement from Loyola Law & her continuing work! [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 2:02 am
Smith v. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:00 pm
SB 267 allows retired teachers to return to the classroom, under certain conditions, as an active teacher with no limitations on earnings. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:00 pm
SB 267 allows retired teachers to return to the classroom, under certain conditions, as an active teacher with no limitations on earnings. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 9:36 am
Poland and Ahmed and Others v. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 4:00 am
" Additionally, the Appellate Division noted reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums is not an improper gift of public funds in violation of Article VIII, §1, of the New York State Constitution," citing Baker v Board of Education, 29 AD3d 574. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 4:00 am
" Additionally, the Appellate Division noted reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums is not an improper gift of public funds in violation of Article VIII, §1, of the New York State Constitution," citing Baker v Board of Education, 29 AD3d 574. [read post]
19 Oct 2021, 10:10 am
Jan. 27, 2016); Bartnett v. [read post]
5 Oct 2021, 1:01 am
Thus he retired at the close of his term. [read post]
2 Oct 2021, 4:50 am
Gerger v. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 10:15 am
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of NetApp on both claims. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 7:00 am
" Additionally, the Appellate Division noted reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums is not an improper gift of public funds in violation of Article VIII, §1, of the New York State Constitution," citing Baker v Board of Education, 29 AD3d 574. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 7:00 am
" Additionally, the Appellate Division noted reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums is not an improper gift of public funds in violation of Article VIII, §1, of the New York State Constitution," citing Baker v Board of Education, 29 AD3d 574. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 10:34 am
In Best v. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
Article V, §6, in pertinent part, requires that “Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state and all of the civil divisions thereof, including cities and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive…. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
Article V, §6, in pertinent part, requires that “Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state and all of the civil divisions thereof, including cities and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive…. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 7:42 am
The seminal case in pension forfeiture matters is Uricoli v. [read post]
3 Aug 2021, 2:22 pm
AC case on May 31, 2021 as her last case before her retirement from the SCC on July 1, 2021. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 6:39 am
Section 36(b) also grants a private right of action to shareholders, who must show that the adviser’s compensation is "so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s length bargaining" (Jones v. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 12:30 pm
Retired U.S. [read post]
