Search for: "U. S. v. Taylor"
Results 41 - 60
of 199
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm
U. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 7:21 pm
Taylor v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 5:40 am
Based on the foregoing, Lindenwood’s factual allegations fail to support the element of proximate cause (see Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d at 149-150; Gersh v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 30363[U], 2017 NY Misc LEXIS 682, * 18-19 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; Caso v Sklarin, 2016 NY Misc LEXIS 6863, * 12-13 [Sup Ct, NY County May 26, 2016, No. 159192/2015]). [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 10:01 am
This opinion is the latest legal win for transgender rights, following the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Bostock v. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 6:39 am
James School v. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 10:51 pm
State v. [read post]
25 May 2020, 6:30 am
The other is that Texas 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]
1 May 2020, 12:32 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [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]
21 Jan 2020, 10:09 am
” Cites to Prager U v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 5:08 am
State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 6:57 am
Koh's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and remedial ordersJay Jurata (Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)Licensing practitioner's perspective on fallout from FTC v. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 10:17 am
That understanding was shaken when I read Phil Dixon’s summary of United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2019, 7:09 am
Continental v. [read post]
6 Oct 2019, 3:37 am
Taylor, 303 U. [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 1:55 pm
Catherine Martin Christopher, Nevertheless She Persisted: Comparing Roe v. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 1:43 pm
Ohio 2007); Taylor v. [read post]
