Search for: "Taylor v. State"
Results 401 - 420
of 3,316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2016, 9:39 am
In Quill Corporation v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 9:39 am
In Quill Corporation v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The employer's annual reviewing and approving requests for the assignment an agency vehicle to an employee does not create a past practiceSpence v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08594, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentCertain employees serving with Department of Transportation [DOT] were assigned state-owned vehicles for work and, in some instances, several employees seeking to use the vehicle for commuting as well as for work was authorized.Wayne… [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The employer's annual reviewing and approving requests for the assignment an agency vehicle to an employee does not create a past practiceSpence v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08594, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentCertain employees serving with Department of Transportation [DOT] were assigned state-owned vehicles for work and, in some instances, several employees seeking to use the vehicle for commuting as well as for work was authorized.Wayne… [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 3:56 am
Authored by Francesca Cassidy-Taylor On Friday 23 April, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in R v Umerji [2021] EWCA Crim 598. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 12:31 am
Yesterday State Farm filed a motion in the McIntosh v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:19 am
"); United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 6:10 am
" Brown v. [read post]
21 Jan 2018, 2:43 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 8:39 am
State v. [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 8:39 am
State v. [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 8:39 am
State v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 1:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 6:56 pm
In the case of Taylor v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 4:14 am
Vernon v PERB, 289 A.D.2d 674, motion for leave to appeal denied, 97 N.Y.2d 613In considering the appeal of the City of Mt. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 9:09 am
In Mathis v. [read post]
7 May 2014, 4:00 am
”*** Much the same argument would apply to retirees of the State as the employer who retired prior to the effective date of the President’s Regulation as such retirees are not employees within the meaning of the Taylor Law nor did they receive any benefit with respect to job security as, like judges, retirees cannot be “laid off. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 8:46 pm
Check the Bloate v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 9:56 pm
From: Findlaw Opinion Summaries June 12, 2008: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, AEROSPACE & DEFENSE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, TRADE SECRETS Taylor v. [read post]
