Search for: "POST OFFICE PROPERTIES, INC" Results 2281 - 2300 of 3,373
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 May 2012, 4:52 am by Susan Brenner
On January 26, 2012, the New York County District Attorney’s Office sent “a subpoena duces tecum to . . .Twitter, Inc. [read post]
4 May 2012, 8:43 am
Why would the hearings officer offer that up to Recology on a platter? [read post]
3 May 2012, 2:45 pm by Eric Schweibenz
On May 1, 2012, Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., and United Video Properties, Inc. [read post]
2 May 2012, 5:52 am by Rob Robinson
Georgetown Law Rolls Out the ‘Law Firm Pronunciation Guide - bit.ly/KoaqON (Bruce Carton) Global Aerospace Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 11:32 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
In 2002, Neopoint Inc. paid a $95,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it unlawfully exported 128-bit encryption software to South Korea. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:25 am by Joe Consumer
District Court in Manhattan, “four City Council members accused JPMorgan Chase & Co., Brookfield Office Properties Inc., Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, of suppressing free speech and using excessive force against protesters. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:25 am by Joe Consumer
District Court in Manhattan, “four City Council members accused JPMorgan Chase & Co., Brookfield Office Properties Inc., Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, of suppressing free speech and using excessive force against protesters. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 11:18 am by Jessica Mendelson
 Additionally, the company alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and violation of California Penal Code section 502, stem from Mintz’s removal of Priority Sports’ property, including files, a laptop, cell phone and office keys, as well as business emails and customer lists sent to his Gmail Account. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 10:57 am by Matthew Bush
BanksDocket: 11-1071Issue(s): Whether the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of a pistol in a coat belonging to a suspect properly arrested for a felony, when the officers took control of the coat solely for the purpose of giving it to the suspect to protect him from the elements, and when the trial court expressly found that the officers acted in good faith, and that the search of the coat was conducted for the officers’ safety and not for the purpose of… [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 10:37 am
Meanwhile, over on Class 46, our much-loved former Kat Mark Schweizer posts on whether the Swiss courts are effectively invalidating trade mark registrations on the ground that registrants are claiming too many goods and services for them. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 1:10 pm by Lewis Lazarus
The lack of particularized allegations precluded the court from inferring that the officer directors controlled the outside directors, according to the opinion. [read post]