Search for: "Hands On Originals, Inc." Results 1901 - 1920 of 3,492
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Feb 2014, 6:43 am by Ron Coleman
Originally posted 2012-10-29 11:41:32. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 4:12 am
Hearst Holdings Inc & Another v A.V.E.L.A. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
After he was charged “with Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, in violation of [New York] Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a), Dissemination of an UnlawfulSurveillance Image in the Second Degree, in violation of [New York] PenalLaw § 250.55, and Public Display of Offensive Sexual Material, in violationof [New York] Penal Law § 245.11(a)”, Ian Barber filed a motion to dismiss the charges as “facially insufficient. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 12:56 am by INFORRM
On the other hand, a social media publication is in permanent form, able to be searched and retrieved at a much later date, by people to whom it was not directed, for a range of purposes divorced from its original context. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 4:17 am
[This week, I’m serializing my just-published article, Religious Law (Especially Islamic Law) in American Courts, 66 Okla. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:51 am by Ken White
But why did the court quash the subpoena originating in the U.K.? [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 2:38 pm
I am originally from New York City. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 1:51 pm by Ron Coleman
 What did the original blog post say Ford did in response to the Tesla ITU filing? [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
Altai, Inc., 982 Ph.D 693 (2nd Cir. 1992). [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 3:57 am by Terry Hart
” The mention of family members and social acquaintances invites a level of specificity that I did not intend and distracts from the original purpose, which is to focus on the relationship between performer and audience. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 7:04 am by Joy Waltemath
On the other hand, the defendants asserted that the court did not have original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ NYLL claims, and that in any case, the court should decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction under one of three statutory exceptions. [read post]