Search for: "C. GRANT" Results 41 - 60 of 26,497
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2024, 4:01 am by Administrator
It’s a summary of all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted from March 15 – May 15, 2024 inclusive. [read post]
18 May 2024, 2:48 pm by Larry
That is unclear because on September 26, 2019, the USTR sent a letter to Kent Displays notifying it that the government "has determined to grant" the requested exclusion. [read post]
18 May 2024, 12:05 pm by Gene Takagi
In the United States, such organizations are often nonprofit tax-exempt organizations, including 501(c)(3) charitable organization, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor organizations, and 501(c)(6) business leagues. [read post]
18 May 2024, 7:41 am by Russell Knight
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the trial court is justified in granting a Rule 103(b) dismissal. [read post]
17 May 2024, 9:31 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
Kelly, who performed a “second opinion” evaluation regarding applicant’s left hip under Labor Code § 4616.3(c). [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), concluding that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Doherty’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief since they were moot, and (2) Doherty failed to state a claim for damages because emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), concluding that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Doherty’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief since they were moot, and (2) Doherty failed to state a claim for damages because emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Evangelina Cantu
This is the third installment of a four-part series dealing with climate change in Colorado. [read post]
16 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
As is customary, I’d like to note that my views are my own as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and I am not speaking on behalf of my fellow Commissioners or the staff. [read post]
16 May 2024, 5:24 am by admin
The Competition Tribunal would have the power to grant private parties leave to make applications for remedies under section 74.1 (the remedies provision for civil deceptive marketing practices under Part VII.1) where it was satisfied that it was in the public interest to do so. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:00 am by Mike Habib, EA
Inadequate reporting of foreign grants and activities, which could be scrutinized under IRC Sections 4945 and 6033. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
.), entered September 11, 2023, in Albany County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion declaring Executive Law § 94 (10) and (14) unconstitutional.In 2020, while serving as Governor, plaintiff sought and was granted approval from the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (hereinafter JCOPE) to publish a book related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which plaintiff later published under the title "American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
.), entered September 11, 2023, in Albany County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion declaring Executive Law § 94 (10) and (14) unconstitutional.In 2020, while serving as Governor, plaintiff sought and was granted approval from the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (hereinafter JCOPE) to publish a book related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which plaintiff later published under the title "American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. [read post]
15 May 2024, 2:15 am by Anna Maria Stein
By decision dated 18 October 2022, the Examiner rejected the trade mark registration under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR as the requested trade mark was deemed to be descriptive and lacked distinctiveness. [read post]