Search for: "Wood v. Pool" Results 1 - 20 of 118
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2024, 4:00 am by Michael Woods and Gordon LaFortune
“Notices to Importers” for each of the categories include “Eligibility Criteria” limiting imports to allocation holders determined pursuant to a pooling system with separate access for processors, further processors, and distributors and “Calculation of Allocations” which set specific percentages reserved for each eligible pool. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 1:25 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
Rogers Group, Inc. , 548 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (finding construction laborer’s injuries arising from personal lunch debt was compensable as employment placed construction workers in close proximity, combatants’ relationship originated at work, and wood used in altercation was implement of employment); Sentry Ins. [read post]
Here, Professor Buzz Thompson, a global expert on water and natural resources who has served as Special Master for the United States Supreme Court in Montana v. [read post]
16 May 2023, 12:57 pm by Phil Dixon
The defendants were unvaccinated and objected to striking unvaccinated jurors from the jury pool. [read post]
7 May 2023, 11:14 am by Kevin LaCroix
Charles V, Ferdinand and Isabella’s grandson, added a Renaissance place to the center of the compound [read post]
14 Jan 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
I offer a couple of examples, written by Chief Justice Hughes (who was no slouch as a lawyer), out of many that could be deployed.[12]  Wood v. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 8:00 pm
v=UODUzow514MVideo Credit: Sean Evans, @evvo1991backtothemovies.com/ [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 4:00 am by Michael Woods and Gordon LaFortune
For the USTR, the condition that one must be a processor to receive an allocation from the reserved pool within the quota and utilize the TRQ is a new condition. [read post]
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination finding Appellants did not suffer a physical taking because the pooling predated the Appellants purchase of the property thus barring inverse condemnation claims. [read post]