Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 461 - 480
of 1,563
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2016, 7:00 am
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.The Appellate Division said that Plaintiffs had noted “the obstacle” to their cause of action in view of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276,* but contended the so-called Martin rule was abrogated by the enactment of the Taylor Law in 1967** or by its 1990 amendment codifying the so-called Triboro Doctrine.In Palladino v CNY Centro, Inc., 23 NY3d 140, explained the… [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 2:17 pm
Flynn, Taylor v. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 10:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 2:47 am
Judge Tallman doesn't (right), in United States v. [read post]
18 May 2022, 2:07 pm
Taylor (Tribal Courts; Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act) Weiss v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 4:03 am
” People v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:30 am
The majority opinion, after 14 pages of opining how the ATS does not apply to human rights violations occurring outside the United States, added: “[o]n these facts, all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 10:23 pm
[see Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 1045]. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 5:59 am
United States v. [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]
31 Oct 2021, 9:25 am
This has more recently been reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 6:17 pm
See United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 9:01 am
United States (on circuits courts’ power to enhance criminal sentences sua sponte) No. 06-7517, Irizarry v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 7:05 am
West, Member of Congress and Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army (Ret.), in Support of Petitioner Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc., and Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Petitioner Brief for the Louis D. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 12:49 pm
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week in Herb Reed Enterprises LLC v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 11:21 am
United States, 459 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1972); see also, Black v. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 5:07 pm
This summary accompanies the oral argument video:Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana certified the following questions of Indiana state law for the Indiana Supreme Court's consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on February 22, 2006: 1. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:52 pm
Other courtsin the United States, in deciding similar issues, have basically stated that equity (unjust enrichment) may provide hope for some compensation to the party whose cells have been utilized by researchers. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:52 pm
Other courtsin the United States, in deciding similar issues, have basically stated that equity (unjust enrichment) may provide hope for some compensation to the party whose cells have been utilized by researchers. [read post]
