Search for: "Taylor v. Taylor"
Results 1821 - 1840
of 4,350
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2020, 9:53 am
House of Representatives v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
An arbitrator's award may only be vacated by a court if it violates public policy, is irrational or it exceeds specified limitations on the arbitrator's powerSubway Surface Supervisors Assn. v New York City Tr. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
" Employee objected, contending that the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the Village and the Bronxville Police Taylor Act Committee [BPTC] provided that he was entitled to individual and family health insurance coverage as a disability retiree. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 1:24 pm
Today's published opinion in United States v. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 3:03 am
Drawing on the analytical methodology laid out in several Supreme Court opinions, including Taylor v. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
" Employee objected, contending that the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the Village and the Bronxville Police Taylor Act Committee [BPTC] provided that he was entitled to individual and family health insurance coverage as a disability retiree. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 4:00 am
Establishing seniority rights in the course of collective bargainingBregman v East Ramapo Cent. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:20 am
See Jewelers Vigilance Comm., Inc. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 5:05 am
" Citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d 1044, the Appellate Division explained that "[T]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" that is "less than a preponderance of the evidence, and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 5:05 am
" Citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d 1044, the Appellate Division explained that "[T]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" that is "less than a preponderance of the evidence, and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable. [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 3:37 am
Johnson & Johnson v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 10:30 am
Taylor ed. 1977)). [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 4:02 am
Corporation v. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am
SEIU appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.Citing Matter of Taylor v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 182 AD3d 815 and Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, the Appellate Division, noting that one of SEIU's members involved in the instant litigation had retired from the Fire Department, explained "so much of the second amended petition/complaint as was asserted by him is not academic, as the determination that there was… [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am
SEIU appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.Citing Matter of Taylor v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 182 AD3d 815 and Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, the Appellate Division, noting that one of SEIU's members involved in the instant litigation had retired from the Fire Department, explained "so much of the second amended petition/complaint as was asserted by him is not academic, as the determination that there was… [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 3:56 am
City of Schenectady and Andriano v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 12:57 pm
Taylor, 165 N.C. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 12:57 pm
Taylor, 165 N.C. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 6:26 am
Taylor in order to “end the cycle of violence” on the reservation. . . . [read post]
8 Nov 2024, 11:06 am
Her Honour commenced by exploring the potential for a cause of action to develop at the common law and embarked on a self-described ‘whistlestop tour’ through the history of privacy protection in Australia ([266]), traversing the decision of Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 that was seen to deny any further development until the arrival of Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208… [read post]
