Search for: "Apparent, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 11,015
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jun 2024, 4:31 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The property was apparently owned and managed through several separate entities, including Maiden Lane Holding LLC, Maiden Lane Capital LLC, and Maiden Lane Development LLC. [read post]
2 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
This event, together with its East Coast and now Midwest counterparts, offers regulators like me a unique opportunity to speak directly to leaders of the securities bar about issues of mutual concern. [read post]
31 May 2024, 11:58 am by John Elwood
It concluded that under the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 8:00 am
Maximum Security NYC, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-05641) in U.S. [read post]
28 May 2024, 5:00 am
Ctr. for Autism, Inc. v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs [read post]
27 May 2024, 8:00 am
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle Services, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00326-MHT-SMD) in U.S. [read post]
27 May 2024, 5:45 am by Norman L. Eisen
“[S]ince this story came out in 2018, became public, she’s made hundreds of thousands of dollars because of it. [read post]
23 May 2024, 8:00 am
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).Apparently, an employee was subjected to a “hostile work environment and discrimination” because of his sexual orientation and was fired after complaining about the mistreatment.Believing that such conducted violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. [read post]
18 May 2024, 2:48 pm by Larry
The basis for this decision is explained in Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm by John Ross
This week the Tenth Circuit vacates that opinion and requests supplemental briefing on how the Supreme Court's recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Coupled with plaintiff's testimony that all the other doors in the building had doorstops, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendants should have noticed the "visible and apparent" condition that the subject door was missing a doorstop, posing a foreseeable risk that the door could slam a person's hand into the wall (Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 83 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE… [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Coupled with plaintiff's testimony that all the other doors in the building had doorstops, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendants should have noticed the "visible and apparent" condition that the subject door was missing a doorstop, posing a foreseeable risk that the door could slam a person's hand into the wall (Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 83 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE… [read post]