Search for: "John Does 1-34" Results 61 - 80 of 863
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2018, 12:39 am by Gene Takagi
He does know 501(c)(3)s can’t do that, right? [read post]
7 May 2009, 4:15 am
No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, the court ruled that under the circumstances terminating Halpin did not constitute an "excessive penalty. [read post]
9 May 2011, 2:00 pm by Todd Penner
.; John Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP; Jason Day, Perkins Coie; and Josiah Hatch, Ducker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, P.C. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 4:09 am
Since Cunningham has acknowledged that he was not a Town resident when he was appointed to this position, and does not intend to become one in the future, his appointment as Commissioner of Public Works does not comport with relevant state law and is invalid. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 11:30 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists perfunctorily. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 11:23 am
These IP luminaries share the honor with Second Life avatars (#1), the PTO's Director John Dudas (#4), the Federal Circuit's Judge Michel (#9), Harry Potter (#14),and  blogger and Google copyright counsel William Patry, of the Patry Copyright Blog. [read post]
5 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Pirani,[1] many have predicted that Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 will decline into a state of near irrelevance. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 7:31 am
  Have at it.In other election news (winners in BLUE):MIAMI-DADE CIRCUIT COURT GROUP 34 RUNOFF Mark Blumstein v. [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 11:16 am
If the victim does not fall quickly enough for this fake “federal student tax”, the scammer threatens to report the student to the police. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 10:53 am by Meg Martin
The Court noted their decision in Bentley where it stated that § 34-1-120 does not apply to executory contracts because they do not fall within the applicable definition of a "conveyance" in § 34-1-120. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 10:47 am
The court rejected plaintiff’s interpretation of Rule 34: Rule 34(a) does not set forth constraints on the manner of production, but instead establishes the permissible scope of a request. [read post]