Search for: "W & W Holdings, LLC" Results 201 - 220 of 1,500
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2021, 4:45 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Abraham Trust is yet another reminder that in the particularized area of limited liability company operating agreements, a growing body of case law holds that unexecuted, or partially executed contracts, may nonetheless be potentially enforceable. [read post]
11 Oct 2021, 4:54 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Tradesman Program Managers LLC v Doyle, 2020 NY Slip Op 32452[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2020]; Barrison v D’Amato & Lynch, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 30905[U] [Sup Ct, NY County]; Lentini v 219 W. 20th St. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 9:17 am by Cathy Moran
Identify vendors who hold deposits to secure payment, such as utilities, settle the bill, and claim the balance of the deposit. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 12:29 pm by Stefanie Jackman
”  In its view, “[w]hether a debt collector had fair notice that it faced punishment for making robocalls turns on whether it reasonably believed that the statute expressly permitted its conduct. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 11:36 am by Eric Goldman
The court decides to do so and changes its mind on the 1595 claim, holding that it too is preempted by Section 230. [read post]
In an August 27, 2021 decision, GAO sided with protester InfoPoint LLC (“InfoPoint”), and the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) which was invited to submit comments, in finding that a Department of Defense (“DoD”) solicitation provision requiring a small business joint venture offeror to itself hold a facility clearance was inconsistent with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (“2020 NDAA”) and SBA’s… [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 3:43 am
., Serial No. 87409894 (August 4, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. [read post]
4 Aug 2021, 2:14 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
., 365 U.S. 260, 264 (1961)); see also In re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. [read post]
11 Jul 2021, 11:05 am by Eugene Volokh
We find, based on the ample evidence in this record, that NIGGA does not function to identify Applicant as the sole source of clothing bearing the word …, and we further hold that the refusal to register did not violate the First Amendment because it did not discriminate against the message conveyed by the proposed mark…. [read post]