Search for: "J. DOES 1-5" Results 181 - 200 of 6,503
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2020, 1:45 pm
This is unacceptable. 1/2— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 5, 2020These brave men and women have risked their lives protecting DC for three days. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 10:00 pm
Additionally, SB-89 would amend § 25-5- 77(j) of The Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act to create a rebuttable presumption that medical treatment is not related to the work injury when the employee does not receive medical treatment related to the claimed injury for a period of two years. [read post]
21 Aug 2011, 2:41 am by 1 Crown Office Row
Sentencing – some basic principles laid down by Parliament 1. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 3:06 am
In Ace European Ltd & 5 ors v (1) Howden Group (2) Howden North America Inc (formerly Howden Buffalo Inc) [2012] EWHC 2427 (Comm), Mr Justice Field upheld his prior order granting permission to the claimant insurers (the Claimants), to serve proceedings seeking declaratory relief, out of the jurisdiction.The Claimants were excess public and products liability insurers of the first Defendant and its subsidiary companies from 1995 to 2002. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Excela Health, No. 5 WAP 2015 (Pa. [read post]
In Lorenzo, the Supreme Court held that a person who disseminates materially misleading statements with the intent to defraud investors can be held primarily liable under Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c), even if that person does not “make” any statement to investors.[5]  The Supreme Court based its decision on the text of the rule and overlap of the rule’s… [read post]
25 Sep 2012, 9:06 am
However, even as of today, this Arbitration Award does not appear on Ms. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 3:50 am
 This describes, among other things, a Phase III trial of trastuzumab in combinations with paclitaxel and other agents, but does not disclose any results from that trial, but it does disclose the results from the Phase I and II studies.The judge considered that Baselga 97 did not enable the clinical benefit claimed in the Patent to be directly and unambiguously derived, and therefore that the claim was novel.Turning to inventive step, Arnold J set out that… [read post]