Search for: "State v. Vest"
Results 1 - 20
of 3,941
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2022, 3:58 am
Cuomo, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, New York State's Court of Appeals said that "In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 5:00 am
Cuomo, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, New York State's Court of Appeals said that "In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013] *). [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 5:00 am
Cuomo, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, New York State's Court of Appeals said that "In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013] *). [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 7:30 pm
In Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, the New York State's Court of Appeals said:"In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
5 Mar 2022, 3:58 am
Cuomo, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, New York State's Court of Appeals said that "In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 7:30 pm
In Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, the New York State's Court of Appeals said:"In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
16 Jul 2022, 8:25 am
” Perkins v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 3:50 am
Because he was not receiving a state retirement allowance, the County said it would not pay for Handy's health insurance in retirement.Handy sued, contending that under the Board's December 1995 actions he was "entitled to health insurance paid at [Schoharie County's] expense as [he had] met the requirement of a vested right. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:35 pm
Today the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 8:04 am
The article also reveals that, well before Marbury v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 8:00 am
That taxonomy may have influenced the Supreme Court’s analysis of patents in Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:56 pm
In Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 1:24 am
The key question as posed by the United States Supreme Court regarding the due process context in Board of Regents v. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 1:22 pm
In San Clemente Estates v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 3:12 pm
A new case worth watching has been filed in Hawaii state court (Third Circuit, the Big Island) that involves allegations of vested rights and estoppel, Nollan/Dolan exactions, state and federal due process and takings, inverse condemnation, and equal protection.The See below, the Complaint in Bridge Aina Le'a v. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 7:59 am
Restrictive Covenant Linked to Employee Incentive Program The restrictive covenants at issue in the case, United Health Care Services, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 4:31 am
In Christian Assembly Rios De Agua Viva v. [read post]
5 May 2020, 2:53 pm
Today, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in another highly anticipated vested rights case: Alameda County Sheriffs Association v. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 10:48 am
EMW Women’s Surgical Center, limited to the following question: Whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court... [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
" ** Chapter 503 of the Law of 1971 amended §431.1 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.*** Kranker v Levitt, 30 NY2d 574.**** Article V §7(a) provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired. [read post]
