Search for: "D. T. S. v. B. E. C." Results 2921 - 2940 of 3,325
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Dec 2015, 7:19 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
¿Habrá mejor ejemplo de lo que es un verdadero déficit de democracia? [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 3:33 am by Peter Mahler
Here’s what the court said in that regard: [T]he reference to a “for cause” termination in a forced sale provision of the [Stockholders Agreement] is quite different from an employment agreement. [read post]
18 Dec 2024, 10:37 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court‘s dismissal of a writ of certiorari in late November in Facebook Inc. v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 10:47 am by Steven Hansen
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; e-mail vamodeo@cpsc.gov; telephone 301-504-7570.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 3:31 pm by sevach
En términos jurídicos la Sala Penal razona que la prevaricación sólo puede cometerse con “actuaciones administrativas” pero al convalidarse por el Parlamento se convierte en “actuación legislativa”  con lo que ya no hay posible delito. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 10:45 pm by José Guillermo
Adoptó como su básico marco conceptual, la "teoría de la turbulencia" de Emery, es decir, cómo la introducción de un entorno caótico, abrumadoramente impredecible, con el tiempo, puede utilizarse para forzar a "Cambio de paradigma" en la mirada de los seres humanos afectados. [read post]
11 May 2022, 9:41 am by Eric Goldman
The bill excludes “Internet search providers, Internet service providers, or e­mail. [read post]
8 Sep 2024, 6:37 pm by centerforartlaw
The international scope of Nazi art looting makes the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 8:58 am by Robert Liles
NEW — Abusive ordering, certifying, referring, or prescribing of Part A or B services, items or drugs. 42 C.F.R. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm by Kirk Jenkins
  Citing Timberlane, the Court balanced five factors with respect to comity: (1) the vital national interests of each state; (b) the extent and the nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcement actions would impose upon the defendant; (c) the extent to which the required conduct is to take place in the territory of the other state; (d) the nationality of the person; and (e) the extent to which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be… [read post]