Search for: "Board of Education v. A, C & S, INC" Results 221 - 240 of 424
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2018, 5:08 am by Charles B. Jimerson, Esq.
Jimerson is an A-V rated, board certified lawyer whose practice focuses on business litigation, construction law, banking law and eminent domain law. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
(relisted after the October 14 conference)   Gloucester County School Board v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 5:20 pm
(The IP Factor) Israel Patent Office practice regarding legal expenses in oppositions (The IP Factor)   New Zealand New Zealand launches second ACTA consultation (Michael Geist)   United Kingdom EWHC request for summary judgment denied - OHIM-IPO class heading conflict case: Daimler v Sany (IPKat)   United States US General Trade secret litigation on the rise against laid off employees (Silicon Valley IP Licensing Law Blog) Seeking and justifying attorney fee… [read post]
16 Feb 2013, 7:23 am by Schachtman
  Some may find irony in the CPR’s past criticism of Citizens United v. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm by Marty Lederman
  Therefore the Court is not being asked to provide an impermissible advisory opinion. c. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 5:17 am
 There, as Case C 96/09 P Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Budějovický Budvar, described by the IPKat here, they were unceremoniously tossed back to the General Court for its further attention. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 2:40 pm
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 12:07 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Employer and other sponsors of non-grandfathered group health plans, their insurers, administrators and fiduciaries should adjust the co-payment, deductible and out of pocket limits applicable for the 2015 plan year to reflect the recent adjustment in the out-of-pocket limits on essential benefits allowed by that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) § 1302(c)(1). [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 5:45 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
For someone to be charged under subsection d, the actor must first engage in conduct prohibited by subsections a, b or c. [read post]