I can't cite chapter and verse, but it's my understanding that a state pension is
guaranteed under the State Constitution.
BRUCE KARAM: We want to be able to provide the sound basic education, which is
guaranteed under the state constitution...
If we are
guaranteed under our state constitution to have a bargaining unit to negotiate with the local school district for our salary schedule, and the guidelines for determining our retirement, doesn't it take a constitutional amendment not a state law to change that?
Not exact matches
«The PDP holds that the governor and the APC are jittery and unpopular of going into the grass roots elections in the
state, thus the decisions to control the councils by nomenclature of executive secretaries and sole administrators, which are alien and offensive to the provisions of our
Constitution, which
under section 7
guarantees only democratically elected local government council administrations.»
Under the
state Constitution, a defined - benefit pension is absolutely
guaranteed.
WHEREAS, this legislation is viewed by many citizens of the
State of New York as being extremely controversial as those citizens view this Legislation as infringing upon their rights
guaranteed to them
under the second Amendment of the United
State Constitution; and
Prof. Dankofa, among other things, in suit KDH / KAD / 236 / 2018 is praying the court to «declare that the action of the respondents (Kaduna
State Government and Kaduna Geographic Information Service, KADGIS) in arrogating to themselves the power to punitively sanction the Applicants (Hunkuyi and his Company, Muna Investment Ltd) property, even if the Applicants were purportedly in default of payment of either ground rent or land use charge or for any other reason constitute a gross violation of Applicant Fundamental Human Right
guaranteed under section 43 (1) and 46 (1) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.»
Reed is also less troublesome to Lindseth to the extent that the court's decision was based on students» equal protection rights
under the
state constitution rather than on the
guarantee of an adequate education.
The plaintiffs, a group of students and school districts, sued, arguing that several
state statutes stood in the way of all students receiving the education
guaranteed to them
under the
state constitution.
The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the
state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality - blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitu
state brought suit against the
State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality - blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitu
State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality - blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as
guaranteed under the New York
State Constitu
State Constitution.
In 2005, the Public School Forum published the results of its eleventh biennial study group, offering detailed strategies to provide every child in the
state with an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, as
guaranteed under the North Carolina
Constitution.1 Public School Forum (2005).
I Wish to Say grew out of Sheryl Oring's concern that not enough voices were being heard about the
state - of - affairs in this country and her belief in the value of free expression that is
guaranteed under our
Constitution.
Iannicelli and Brandt are being harassed by the Colorado district attorney's office for exercising their freedom of speech, which is supposedly
guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
In my opinion the ECJ's decision in Taricco I that national courts must disapply the rules of statutes of limitations if they prevent Member
States from fulfilling their obligations
under Article 325 TFEU (in the present case, the relevant Italian legislation) leads to perceiving serious fraud as a crime against the rights and interests of citizens, i.e., against fundamental social human rights
guaranteed under Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian
Constitution, and hence calls for resolving the conflict within the Italian
Constitution by balancing the rights
under these articles and the accused's individual rights
guaranteed by the legality principle (Art. 25 (2) Const.).
A
state court is has the power to enforce greater protections to a person claiming rights, relying on the
state's
constitution, than those
guaranteed under the federal
constitution.
[5] In this case, the court while reiterating the availability of some fundamental rights to arrested persons and detainees especially those available
under Article 21, further held that «for violation of the Fundamental Rights to life or basic human rights, the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the
state for the established violation of the rights
guaranteed by the
Constitution of India
under Article 21».
Justice Gorsuch argued that partisan gerrymandering claims arise
under Article IV, Section 4 of the
Constitution, which requires the federal government to «
guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,» and which the Court has long dismissed as giving rise only to non-justiciable political questions.
The ECJ's decision that national courts must disapply the rules of statutes of limitations if they prevent Member
States from fulfilling their obligations
under Article 325 TFEU (in the present case, the relevant Italian legislation) leads to perceiving serious fraud as a crime against the rights and interests of citizens, i.e., against fundamental social human rights
guaranteed under Arts. 2 and 3 Const., and hence calls for resolving the conflict within the Italian
Constitution by balancing the rights
under these articles and the accused's individual rights
guaranteed by the legality principle (Art. 25 Const.)
In Walker v Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to a jury trial
guaranteed under the Seventh Amendment to the
Constitution did not apply to
states.
By taking on the Canadian
state, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Sandra Lovelace and Yvonne Bédard directly contributed to section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, which was amended in 1983 to
guarantee that Aboriginal and treaty rights would be equally accessible to men and women
under the law.
Since June 2015, marriage equality has been legal in every
state across the U.S.. That's because a Supreme Court ruling determined that marriage is a
guaranteed right that is protected
under the U.S.
Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
After their case was consolidated with those of 28 other marriage equality plaintiffs from four
states, the Court ruled 5 - 4 on June 26, 2015, that the fundamental right to marry is
guaranteed to same - sex couples
under the due process and equal protection clauses in the
Constitution.