Search for: "Array Holdings Inc" Results 241 - 260 of 422
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Oct 2014, 5:21 pm by Angelo A. Paparelli
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Fogo de Chao (Holdings) Inc., v. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 3:56 am by SHG
For example, should the Supreme Court hold that factual innocence is not cognizable as a “stand alone” federal claim, I would follow that precedent. [read post]
6 Sep 2014, 8:53 am
  Procedural HistoryAppellants, Pegasus Technologies Ltd. and Luidia, Inc., own several patents relating to digital pens and receiver devices which, they allege, the Appellees have infringed. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 12:39 pm
S.J. 19 is rooted in the disturbing concept that those who hold office in both federal and state legislatures, armed with all the advantages of incumbency, may effectively prevent their opponents from becoming known to the public, by adopting legislation, which the proposed amendment would empower them to do, limiting the total amounts they may raise and spend in an effort to do so. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
By William Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Katherine Hart, Glen Hansen, and Brian Russell Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2014 1st Quarter CEQA update. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 5:02 am by Terry Hart
Indeed, tort law provides a diverse array of doctrines that can be called upon to answer who a “performer” is: ideas such as proximate causation, agency, and perhaps even bailment. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 10:02 am by Justin Bagdady
”  Brenner added that this provision could thus “fill a gap” caused by the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus Capital Inc. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 9:07 am by Ken White
Fodera strikes me as a sad and stunted person, lashing out at someone for holding a mirror up to him. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
  A holding that the three corporations at issue here--Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Mardel, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Basic, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 4:48 pm
  Given the vast array of circumstances that can arise making an order more or less appropriate, and given that the consequences of violating a court order include the possibility of holding someone in contempt, it is sound policy and law for such discretion to exist. [read post]