Search for: "L&W Entertainment" Results 1 - 20 of 296
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2024, 3:33 pm by admin
Prelude to Litigation Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was a widely used direct α-adrenergic agonist used as a medication to control cold symptoms and to suppress appetite for weight loss.[1] In 1972, an over-the-counter (OTC) Advisory Review Panel considered the safety and efficacy of PPA-containing nasal decongestant medications, leading, in 1976, to a recommendation that the agency label these medications as “generally recognized as safe and effective. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 3:52 am
TTABlogger comment: I don't think anyone would confuse Gorgeous George with Ugly George, if there had been a wrestler named Ugly George.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:29 am by centerforartlaw
By Natalie Glitz Grumhaus There are many reasons that a nonprofit foundation may feel the need to dissolve.[1] When James and Charlotte Brooks Foundation decided to fully dissolve in 2015, only five years after its founding in 2010, they donated most of the Brooks’ artwork to a local art museum, the Parrish, as a way to further the Foundation’s purpose as an artist-endowed institution, dedicated to the Long Island arts community.[2] Another organization, the Urban Institute of… [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 8:26 am
Read comments and post your comment here.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 4:33 am
[Results in first comment].YG Entertainment Inc., Serial No. 79975600 (March 9, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am by David Kopel
Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000). 2130. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 3:08 pm by Eugene Volokh
School Dist. (1969); the court noted that public K-12 schools may punish student for speech (even when that speech couldn't be criminally punished by the government acting as sovereign, and went on to say: [W]e readily conclude that the First Amendment would not prevent a school from punishing the sort of speech at issue here had it "occur[red] under [the school's] supervision. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 8:10 am by Joel R. Brandes
Additionally, the Family Court properly included the children as protected persons on the order of protection, as the evidence demonstrated that doing so was “necessary to further the purposes of protection” (Family Ct Act § 842[l]; see Matter of Lengiewicz v. [read post]