Search for: "United States v. Taylor" Results 1 - 20 of 1,113
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2020, 8:14 pm by Steve Gottlieb
Press 2008); Charles Lane, The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction (Henry Holt & Company 2008); and United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 2:54 am
Taylor III, Respondent (FINRA AWC)Supreme Court Denies Defendants’ Challenge to CFTC’s Enforcement AuthorityUS Supreme Court Says "Bookings.com" Is Not An Ineligible Generic Name Per Federal Trademark United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., Petitioners, v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 5:50 am by Kevin Kaufman
The tax treatment of dual-income earners in a family comes from social and legal assumptions the tax code makes when evaluating the nature of taxable units. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 8:05 am by Marcia Coyle
Taylor was put in a cell in a prison psychiatric unit for mental health treatment. [read post]
26 May 2020, 7:55 am by Dan Bressler
United States, in which the IRS used a ‘John Doe’ summons that sought the identity of clients for whom the law firm had performed certain work. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"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 by Public Employment Law Press
"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]
5 May 2020, 5:03 am by Eugene Volokh
The plaintiff had argued that his case is based on the defendant's contractual obligations, and the libel law cases thus don't apply: Plaintiff argues this case is controlled by the United States Supreme Court's holding in Cohen v. [read post]