Search for: "UPS, Inc." Results 241 - 260 of 43,662
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 May 2024, 6:00 am by Michelle
The major companies that provide these so called “pay in four” products, such as Affirm Holdings Inc., Klarna Bank AB and Block Inc. [read post]
10 May 2024, 4:36 am by News Desk
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.) [read post]
Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc. [read post]
8 May 2024, 2:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  In early 2020, President Trump signed the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act (a/k/a SECURE Act 1.0) into law. [read post]
8 May 2024, 7:25 am by Shane McCall
Appearance of Impropriety Standard COFC relied on the standard set forth in NKF Engineering, Inc., v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
RosadoIndex No. 152743/21 Appeal No. 1230 Case No. 2022-02719[*1]IntegrateNYC, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,vThe State of New York et al., Defendants-Respondents, Parents Defending Education, Intervenor Defendant-Respondent. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
RosadoIndex No. 152743/21 Appeal No. 1230 Case No. 2022-02719[*1]IntegrateNYC, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,vThe State of New York et al., Defendants-Respondents, Parents Defending Education, Intervenor Defendant-Respondent. [read post]
7 May 2024, 12:30 pm by Richard Reibstein Esq.
Our publisher noted that “the biggest issue with the high court’s decision is that its precedent tees up more litigation by using terms without defining them. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:12 am by admin
 See, NLRB Advice Memorandum Dated April 16, 2019, Uber Technologies, Inc. [read post]
6 May 2024, 2:34 pm by Brett Trout
Assuming you have signed up for the program and meet all of Amazon’s prerequisites, if you see someone on Amazon selling a product that infringes your patent you may fill out and submit an APEX Agreement to Amazon. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am by Eugene Volokh
The court didn't opine about how the privacy interests of the rape victim would stack up against the concerns about fairness to the defendant in the more typical scenario, where there was no judgment of liability against the defendant (as indeed there wasn't for the first stage of this very case). [read post]