Search for: "Taylor's Administrator v. Taylor"
Results 1 - 20
of 908
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2016, 11:07 am
In Taylor v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 3:58 am
Exhausting of Taylor Law contract remediesKaufmann v Rochester CSD, App. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 8:45 pm
Taylor v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 5:19 am
Alvis, Bailey and Taylor note some minor legal differences between the defenses of congressional delegation theory advanced by Justice Louis Brandeis and James McReynolds in Myers v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 3:11 am
Litigating the Taylor Law in federal courtSchermerhorn v Metropolitan Trans. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 5:41 am
As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:00 am
Tests for determining the “arbitrability” of Taylor Law contract provisionsOdessa-Montour CSD v Odessa-Montour Teachers Asso., 271 AD2d 931The Odessa-Montour decision by the Appellate Division, Third Department applied the guidelines set out in the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Watertown City School District v Watertown Education Association, 93 NY2d 132. [read post]
31 May 2017, 11:45 am
” Judge Kavanaugh’s 10-page opinion in Taylor v. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 3:22 am
Taylor Law considerations concerning General Municipal Law Section 207-a/207-cBarnes v Council 82, [David Monroe], Court of Appeals, 94 NY2d 719Watertown v Watertown PBA, Court of Appeals, 95 NY2d 73Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO, v Cohoes, Court of Appeals, 94 NY2d 686The Court of Appeals has handed down three rulings concerning issues involving collective bargaining under the Taylor Law as they relate to negotiating procedures to implement and administer… [read post]
24 May 2018, 10:03 am
HMRC set out the policy behind VAT grouping, which is essentially to promote simplicity of administration. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 11:17 am
The Ninth Circuit takes a stab at this question in Taylor v. [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 4:19 am
Denning and Molly C Taylor (Cumberland School of Law and Samford University - Cumberland School of Law) has posted Morse V. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 5:21 am
Local 1000 AFSCME AFL-CIO v New York State Pub. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
Such persons, however, remain subject to the provisions of §210 of the Taylor Law, "Prohibition of strikes" and §211 of the Taylor Law which provides for obtaining "injunctive relief" where required.Further, only persons (i) who formulate policy or (ii) who may reasonably be required on behalf of the public employer to assist directly in the preparation for and conduct of collective bargaining pursuant to the Taylor Law or to have a… [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
Such persons, however, remain subject to the provisions of §210 of the Taylor Law, "Prohibition of strikes" and §211 of the Taylor Law which provides for obtaining "injunctive relief" where required.Further, only persons (i) who formulate policy or (ii) who may reasonably be required on behalf of the public employer to assist directly in the preparation for and conduct of collective bargaining pursuant to the Taylor Law or to have a… [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 8:51 am
In Taylor v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 6:06 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Land Use Opinions;Administrative Appeals Opinions Body: SC18426 - Taylor v. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 3:49 am
Raffensperger, which allows an state administrative hearing over Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s qualifications to proceed. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 4:00 am
Taylor Law amended to clarify an employee organization's duty of fair representation of non-members in a collective bargaining unit Section 209-a.2 of the Civil Service LawIn Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448, the Supreme Court held that "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 4:00 am
Taylor Law amended to clarify an employee organization's duty of fair representation of non-members in a collective bargaining unit Section 209-a.2 of the Civil Service LawIn Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448, the Supreme Court held that "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. [read post]
