Search for: "STATE v TAYLOR" Results 121 - 140 of 3,164
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Oct 2015, 12:50 pm
 The Court of Appeal refers to him by name in a published opinion and refers him to the State Bar.What Mr. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 8:35 am
Taylor, No. 123 (NY Oct. 23, 2007) (available here) begins this way:Three years ago, in People v LaValle (3 NY3d 88 [2004]), we held that the jury deadlock instruction under CPL 400.27 violates our State Constitution. [read post]
2 May 2011, 9:50 am
Taylor v Taylor 2011 NY Slip Op 03049 Decided on April 12, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department The supreme court denied husband’s motion for a downward modification of child support and maintenance and held husband in contempt for failure to pay arrears. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 4:04 am
Alleged violations of a "Memorandum of Understanding" to a Taylor Law agreement may not be subject to contract grievance proceduresPine Plains CSD v Federation of Teachers, 248 A.D.2d 612It is not unusual for parties to a collective bargaining agreement to agree to provisions set out in a “supplemental agreement” or to sign a “memorandum of understanding” in the course of collective bargaining pursuant to the Taylor Law.Typically this… [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 11:15 am
Union rather than officers or board members to acknowledge it does not assert the right to violate the Taylor LawNew York City Tr. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Taylor Law amended to clarify an employee organization's duty of fair representation of non-members in a collective bargaining unit  Section 209-a.2 of the Civil Service LawIn Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448, the Supreme Court held that "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Taylor Law amended to clarify an employee organization's duty of fair representation of non-members in a collective bargaining unit  Section 209-a.2 of the Civil Service LawIn Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448, the Supreme Court held that "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. [read post]
8 Dec 2013, 1:15 pm
Earlier this week, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal issued a decision in the case of Taylor v. [read post]