Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
During or after these three years, the principal must decide if the school will grant tenure to this teacher. If so, the teacher will be asked to work there for a fourth year and will be granted tenure. The principal is able to fire a teacher at any time during the probation period.
Pursuant to the authority of a court, it may be possible for a defendant to apply for early discharge from probation after a certain proportion of the probation period has been completed. For example, in the U.S. state of Georgia an offender may apply for early termination from felony probation after serving at least three years of the sentence ...
Few aspects of the federal or state constitutions may restrict the length of probation period, although the sentence usually clearly obeys the local law to establish fairness and justice. [11] Statutory limitations perhaps determine time period of the proposed probation as well as the conditional circumstance which the probation can be extended.
Jun. 8—Justice Court officials are pushing commissioners to continue funding the county probation department after what they describe as a successful two-and-a-half year trial period. Judge Jay ...
In a termination letter from Lavender to Oberer the sheriff states that employment was terminated due to the failure to successfully complete the probationary period, including engaging in ...
The life cycle of federal supervision for a defendant. United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, [1] or in addition to home detention, [2] while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment.
An Ohio man received supervised probation after pleading guilty to threatening to kill a North Carolina state senator in a social media message last year. Nicolas Alan Daniels, of West Portsmouth ...
The term stems from Loudermill v.Cleveland Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court held that non-probationary civil servants had a property right to continued employment and such employment could not be denied to employees unless they were given an opportunity to hear and respond to the charges against them prior to being deprived of continued employment.