Search for: "U.S. v. Roche*"
Results 121 - 140
of 248
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2018, 4:58 pm
Aslin, et al. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 11:59 am
Colleen V. [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 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]
2 Aug 2012, 7:58 am
Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in Banks v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 11:01 am
Staff Writer On March 20, 2012, the U.S. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 7:02 pm
The criminal case is U.S. v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 7:37 am
The articles were filed the same day Judge Ross was set to testify before the U.S. [read post]
2 Nov 2013, 9:03 pm
Arguing for the local government in Town of Greece v. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 5:53 pm
Wilson v. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm
Jay Plager, Circuit Judge, U.S. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 11:33 am
Co. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2023, 9:31 am
U.S. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 1:59 am
Marler is also publisher of Food Safety News.The lawsuit was filed Nov. 28 in U.S. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 7:37 am
Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982))There are many court cases surrounding the right to read; one of the more recent ones is from 2003, Counts v. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 7:46 am
Gutierrez and Holder v. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 4:22 pm
In that case, Alzaabi v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 12:14 pm
U.S., 09-617). [read post]
