Search for: "gregory et al" Results 141 - 160 of 428
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2017, 7:39 am by MBettman
On February 7, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n, et al. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2017, 4:30 am by Gregory B. Williams
Bloomberg L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 14-561-GMS (D.Del., January 19, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 8:10 am
Female representation on corporate boards is likely to remain a central theme of future interventions, yet existing evidence suggests no or even a negative effect of board gender diversity on firm performance (Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Gregory-Smith et al, 2014). [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 2:25 pm by Patricia Salkin
Petitioners/plaintiffs, Gregory Soldatenko, et al, acquired property that included what was once Lot 117 and was now Lots 217 and 217A on the Village of Scarsdale, New York tax map. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 6:30 am by Jacob Lazarovic, M.D.
By Jacob Lazarovic, MD, FAAFP Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Broadspire   REVISITING SOME CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS   TAKING OUR PULSE   Practicing medicine, or making decisions about the appropriateness of treatment, and the presence and extent of disability, is not always a straightforward issue. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 4:00 am by Paul Caron
Thomas) et al., Scholarly Impact of Law School Faculties in 2015: Updating the Leiter Score Ranking for the Top Third, 12 U. [read post]
23 Apr 2016, 5:58 am by Gregory B. Williams
Sandoz Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-110-GMS (D.Del., Apr. 20, 2016), the Court denied defendants’ post-trial proposed finding that the Court find the patents-in-suit were invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Apr 2016, 5:58 am by Gregory B. Williams
Sandoz Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-110-GMS (D.Del., Apr. 20, 2016), the Court denied defendants’ post-trial proposed finding that the Court find the patents-in-suit were invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. [read post]