Search for: "Rubric Legal LLC"
Results 161 - 180
of 181
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2011, 2:57 am
Cespedes v Kraja, 70 AD3d 622; Step-Murphy, LLC v B & B Bros. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 7:44 am
Legal experts seem to agree. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 4:13 am
© 2011 Simple Justice NY LLC. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 6:36 am
The Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
8 May 2011, 11:58 am
LLC, according to the complaint filed in Autauga County Circuit Court. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
The same is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like, many of which for this very reason cannot legally be sold except to physicians, or under the prescription of a physician. . . . [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 6:44 am
He evaluates rules and rubrics, and cares little about spirituality. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
This is one of a series of posts that will excerpt sections from the third edition of my book, Day on Torts: Leading Tennessee Tort Cases. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 3:01 am
© 2010 Simple Justice NY LLC. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 7:18 am
Introduction Part I of this series (here) was published the day before the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 4:41 am
© 2010 Simple Justice NY LLC. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 2:58 am
© 2010 Simple Justice NY LLC. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 3:15 am
© 2010 Simple Justice NY LLC. [read post]
7 Aug 2010, 2:59 am
Some of these dynamic speakers fall under the ABA Journal's ignominious Legal Rebel rubric, a shameful confusion of people who prefer iPads to legal pads, for whom practicing law holds only the vaguest meaning. [read post]
1 Aug 2010, 4:58 am
On the law, the dissents clearly have the legal upper hand. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 2:20 am
.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 3:34 am
Cespedes v Kraja, 70 AD3d 622; Step-Murphy, LLC v B & B Bros. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 2:57 am
Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d 659, 660 [2d Dept 2007]; Lee v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 12:13 pm
He suggested that I explore the topic of "manifest disregard" of the law in light of the United States Supreme Court decision Hall Street Associates, LLC v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 4:00 am
Because AT&T's benefit calculation rule accorded with the terms of a bona fide seniority system under Title VII, the company was insulated from a legal challenge (May 18, 2009).Ashcroft v Iqbal. [read post]
