Search for: "Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security"
Results 21 - 40
of 63
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2022, 4:30 pm
Information Commissioner’s Office said a breach notification was reviewed and it was determined no further action was needed. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 4:02 pm
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia On 28 February 2022, the claimant’s case was dismissed in Taylor v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 149. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 7:38 am
The hearings, "Protection from Persecution: Establishing Humanitarian Pathways for Hong Kongers and Uyghurs" is intended to be a "catalyst for passage of legislation offered in the 117th Congress to extend protections for Hong Kongers and Uyghurs facing a well-founded fear of persecution, including legislation offered by CECC Commissioners. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
” In 1900 this "rule of one" as then set out in then Civil Service Law §14 was struck down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional.In People v Mosher, 163 NY 32, the Court of Appeals held that "if the civil service commissioners have power to certify to the appointing officer only one applicant of several who are eligible and whom they have, by their own methods, ascertained to be fitted for a particular position, and their decision is final ... then… [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
” In 1900 this "rule of one" as then set out in then Civil Service Law §14 was struck down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional.In People v Mosher, 163 NY 32, the Court of Appeals held that "if the civil service commissioners have power to certify to the appointing officer only one applicant of several who are eligible and whom they have, by their own methods, ascertained to be fitted for a particular position, and their decision is final ... then… [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 5:51 am
Taylor (The Wharton School), on Friday, April 9, 2021 Tags: Climate change, Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental disclosure, ESG, Institutional Investors, Long-Term value, Sustainability Statement by Acting Director Coates on SPACs, IPOs and Liability Risk under the Securities Laws Posted by John C. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 3:00 am
At issue are nonprofit “social welfare” groups registered under the 501(c)(4) section of the tax code. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
16 Feb 2020, 4:52 pm
heard 4 and 5 February 2020 (Etherton MR, David Richards and Coulson LJJ) Various Claimants v MGN, heard, 28 to 31 January 2020 (Mann J) Dawson-Damer & Ors v Taylor Wessing LLP & Ors, heard 29 and 30 January 2020 (Floyd, Newey and Arnold LJJ) W M Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants, heard 6 and 7 Nov [read post]
9 Feb 2020, 4:05 pm
Ireland’s data protection commissioner has launched an inquiry into the processing of personal data of users of the Tinder dating app. [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 1:55 pm
Catherine Martin Christopher, Nevertheless She Persisted: Comparing Roe v. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 1:00 am
R v Reeves Taylor, heard 24-25 Jun 2019. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 4:07 pm
Internet and Social Media. [read post]
25 May 2019, 7:19 am
In Reed v. [read post]
16 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
Surveillance PI comments on Taylor Swift’s alleged use of facial recognition software at a kiosk in a recent concert, which scanned users face’s without consent and compared them to those documented to pose a security risk to her. [read post]
25 May 2018, 2:00 am
Commissioners for HMRC v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc (Scotland) was heard on 11 Apr 2018. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 1:00 am
Commissioners for HMRC v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc (Scotland), heard 11 Apr 2018. [read post]
