Search for: "All Power Generators, Corp." Results 201 - 220 of 3,733
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2011, 10:02 am by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch
This is goingto cost tens of billions of dollars and require a reasonable number of years for a smooth transitionto a cleaner generating fleet. [read post]
9 May 2013, 10:12 am by Benjamin Wittes
[A] fair review of the evidence does not permit a persuasive argument that the text and original intent compel recognition of a more general, illimitable power of command. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 12:08 pm by Lawrence Cunningham
Yet contract law is repeatedly put to new tests each generation. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 7:34 am by Silver Law Group
In New York, the Martin Act gives the New York Attorney General broad law enforcement powers to investigate fraud in an offer, purchase or sale of securities, which protects investors from illegal activity. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 4:00 am
It noted that B&D advertises "Hog Powered Products" and utilizes store banners with slogans such as GOING HOG WILD, HOG POWER, and HOG POWERED PRODUCTS. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 3:13 am by Dennis Crouch
At a more general level, the issue here represents an important shot in the battle for power and authority in the setting of patent law policy that is ongoing between the Patent Office and the Judiciary. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 12:11 pm by Michael M. Lauter
Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. __ (2017) held that a bankruptcy court does not have the power to approve a structured dismissal of a bankruptcy case that violates the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme unless the affected parties consent. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 12:11 pm by Michael M. Lauter
Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. __ (2017) held that a bankruptcy court does not have the power to approve a structured dismissal of a bankruptcy case that violates the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme unless the affected parties consent. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 12:11 pm by Michael M. Lauter
Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. __ (2017) held that a bankruptcy court does not have the power to approve a structured dismissal of a bankruptcy case that violates the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme unless the affected parties consent. [read post]