Search for: "Commissioner v. McCoy" Results 1 - 20 of 29
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Feb 2011, 1:55 pm
Category: Recent Decisions;Administrative Appeals Opinions Body: SC18545 - McCoy v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 6:42 am by By Adam Wahlberg
McCoy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, with Seth P. [read post]
24 May 2010, 4:54 pm
By Ryan McCoy and Catherine Ngo Several pieces of employment-related legislation are pending before the California Legislature this 2009-2010 term. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 6:14 am by John Jascob
William McCoy, a managing director at Morgan Stanley, described a number of commitments his firm has made towards a carbon neutral future. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
The basis of the order requiring Facebook to identify TVO was the decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); but it “is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used” (Megaleasing v Barrett (No 2) [1993] ILRM 497, 503 (Finlay CJ). [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 3:15 am
”The Court of Appeals cited Gavigan v McCoy, 37 NY2d 548, Niebling v Wagner, 12 NY2d 314, and Mandle v Brown, 4 AD2d 283, affirmed 5 NY2d 51, as cases demonstrating the proposition that an employee cannot achieve a higher grade or salary by being assigned or engaging in out-of-title work “because this would violate the fundamental civil service tenet of advancement through competitive examination. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
"The Court of Appeals cited Gavigan v McCoy, 37 NY2d 548, Niebling v Wagner, 12 NY2d 314, and Mandle v Brown, 4 AD2d 283, affirmed 5 NY2d 51, as cases demonstrating the proposition that an employee cannot achieve a higher grade or salary by being assigned or engaging in out-of-title work "because this would violate the fundamental civil service tenet of advancement through competitive examination. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 3:33 am
Commissioner, 451 F.2d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1971) [(internal quotation omitted)]. . . . [read post]