Search for: "Vest Enterprises Inc" Results 1 - 20 of 111
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jun 2016, 5:41 am by Patricia Salkin
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. v City of Oakland, 2016 WL 3453650 (CA 6/23/2016)Filed under: Current Caselaw, Vested Rights [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 7:00 am by ACC Guest Blogger
Will the new enterprise be greeted as an energizing catalyst or as a virus to be attacked by vested stakeholders? [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 7:00 am by ACC Guest Blogger
Will the new enterprise be greeted as an energizing catalyst or as a virus to be attacked by vested stakeholders? [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 5:56 am by Patricia Salkin
This case arose from an event hosted by Cavalia USA, Inc., which held its outdoor entertainment traveling horse show on the Noble parking lot. [read post]
19 Sep 2007, 7:39 pm
Bethesda-based USAID contractor Development Alternatives, Inc (DAI) recently agreed to pay the Bureau of Industry and Security a $7,500 fine for attempted exports in July 2004 of concealable vests, body armor and bomb blast blankets to Iraq without a license. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 4:07 am
[Refusal of GRAIN AUDIO for audio speakers, amplifiers, receivers, and other audio equipment [AUDIO disclaimed], in view of the registered mark EGRAIN for, inter alia, radio transmitters and audio receivers].In re Sunton Enterprises Inc., Serial No. 85253147 (November 25, 2013) [not precedential]. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 7:14 am by Lee Brumitt
As reported in this blog in October, 2015 in the post “The Making of a Supreme Court Case,” we predicted that the Missouri Supreme Court would take the case of Byrne and Jones Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 6:51 am
 Meanwhile, legal questions continue to loom regarding another business where Durham has a vested interest: Los Angeles-based National Lampoon, Inc. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 8:27 am by Jonathan H. Adler
To remedy the violation, we follow the Supreme Court’s approach in Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 2:40 pm by Steven Boutwell
  Noting that the exclusion applies to “tangible personal property,” and the sales tax regulation interpreting the exclusion provides that whether materials are further processed or simply used in the processing activity will depend entirely upon an analysis of the “end product,” the court reasoned that it found nothing in the law that requires the “end product” be the enterprise’s primary product, explaining: “The plain language of the… [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 6:26 am by RatnerPrestia
O’Shaughnessy This article first appeared in the Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A & Canada), Inc. [read post]