Search for: "BOARD OF EDUC. v. STATE BD. OF EDUC."
Results 81 - 100
of 337
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
Citing Matter of Asch v New York City Bd. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
Citing Matter of Asch v New York City Bd. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 4:32 am
School Dist. v New York State Pub. [read post]
18 May 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Francello v Mendoza, 165 AD3d 1555 and Matter of State of New York v New York State Pub. [read post]
18 May 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Francello v Mendoza, 165 AD3d 1555 and Matter of State of New York v New York State Pub. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 1:51 pm
Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 11:19 pm
Chronic health problems may not constitute a disability within the meaning of ADA or the State’s Human Rights LawSirota v NYC Bd. of Ed., App. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 4:01 am
No. 1 LLC v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 11:05 am
No. 1 LLC v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 3:15 am
Relations Bd. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 5:15 am
New York State Bd. of Real Prop. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 5:15 am
New York State Bd. of Real Prop. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
Bd., 64 F3d 184, 188 [5th Cir 1995], citing Tinker v Des Moines Indep. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
Bd., 64 F3d 184, 188 [5th Cir 1995], citing Tinker v Des Moines Indep. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 12:21 pm
Today is the 70th anniversary of West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Adrian v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 2012 NY Slip Op 01293, Appellate Division. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Adrian v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 2012 NY Slip Op 01293, Appellate Division. [read post]
8 May 2014, 6:43 am
Shain v Lakewood Tp. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 7:47 am
Bd. of Edn. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 2:26 am
"In formulating his ruling, Justice Devine noted the decision by the Appellate Division in Civil Service Employees Ass'n v New York State Public Employee Relations Board, 46 AD3d 1037, but concluded that the decision was not a controlling precedent in this case. [read post]