Search for: "Keller v. Keller" Results 201 - 220 of 884
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Mar 2019, 2:10 pm by John Floyd
”   Court Deals Blow to Transparency   Last month the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) in Texas v. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Murphy v Herfort, 428 NY2d 117, is an example of litigation resulting statements contained in communications between administrators; Missek-Falkoff v Keller, 153 AD2d 841, is an example of a case where one employee sued another employee because of the contents of a memorandum from the second employee to a superior concerning a “problem” with the coworker.As alternatives to claiming absolute immunity or qualified immunity, a public officer or employee… [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Murphy v Herfort, 428 NY2d 117, is an example of litigation resulting statements contained in communications between administrators; Missek-Falkoff v Keller, 153 AD2d 841, is an example of a case where one employee sued another employee because of the contents of a memorandum from the second employee to a superior concerning a “problem” with the coworker.As alternatives to claiming absolute immunity or qualified immunity, a public officer or employee… [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
The fruition of that absorption of DP law into Article 8 is apparent in the recent decision of Catt v. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 9:27 am by zamansky
Erin Riley, an attorney with Keller Rohrback LLP in Seattle, said the decision is a welcome change. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 12:22 pm by John Elwood
Wetch, 17-886 Issues: (1) Whether it violates the First Amendment for state law to presume that the petitioner consents to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by the group he is compelled to fund (an “opt-out” rule), as opposed to an “opt-in” rule whereby the petitioner must affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech; and (2) whether Keller v. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 7:04 am by John Elwood
Wetch, 17-886 Issues: (1) Whether it violates the First Amendment for state law to presume that the petitioner consents to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by the group he is compelled to fund (an “opt-out” rule), as opposed to an “opt-in” rule whereby the petitioner must affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech; and (2) whether Keller v. [read post]