Search for: "U.S. v. Swint"
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2006, 7:03 am
Swint v. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 5:48 am
Swint v. [read post]
3 Nov 2006, 4:44 am
Pendent claims are thus appealable 'if, and only if, they too fall within Cohen's collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule.' " Timpanogos Tribe, 286 F.3d at 1200 (quoting Swint v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 4:28 pm
Swint, 514 U.S. at 43-44, 51. [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm
” Swint v. [read post]
11 May 2009, 1:57 am
In Swint v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 2:00 am
Hilliard, 98 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 1996)] recognized, that doctrine is shaky after Swint v. [read post]
13 Oct 2006, 6:28 am
Swint v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 1:58 pm
Id. at 11 (quoting Swint v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 1:58 pm
Id. at 11 (quoting Swint v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:16 am
From a panel decision Bennie v. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Ruttenberg v. [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 8:43 am
Swint, 328 N.J. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 9:02 am
See Swint v. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 4:17 am
See Swint v. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 8:01 pm
” Quoting Swint v. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 11:14 am
Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659 (2000); Hurley 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]
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]