Search for: "C C Open A, LLC" Results 301 - 320 of 1,513
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2012, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
In September 2010 they signed an amendment which included a provision requiring them to devote equal time to the business which opened in January 2011.In the following months relations soured between Spota and Shure. [read post]
7 May 2012, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
Driscoll who handed down two decisions early last month (a) denying Spota's application to stay the eviction proceeding, (b) granting Shure's application to dissolve the LLC, (c) ordering a hearing on Shure's request to appoint a receiver and for injunctive relief, and (d) permitting the business to continue to operate until its "eventual dissolution." [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 11:39 am by Steven Boutwell
Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 845 F.3d 170, 178 (5th Cir. 2016) This case followed AKM LLC dba Volks Constructors v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 3:26 am by Peter Mahler
The founder and manager of FGLS and C&P, and the direct conduit to Bernie Madoff and BLMIS, was Steven Mendelow. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 9:41 am by Dennis Crouch
In February 2015, the Federal Circuit gave its first deep consideration to these statutes in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC.[2] The IPR petition against Cuozzo’s patent had applied reference A to claim 10, and references A, B, and C to claim 17 (which depended from claim 10). [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 9:45 am by Jordane Reid
By Pamela Garvie, Elana Reman, Andrew Glass, Gregory Blase, Joseph C. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 12:12 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
There was no contrast with other possible meanings, and there were no open-ended questions. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 7:04 am by John Jascob
The government noted that Central Bank specifically left open the possibility of primary liability if the elements of such liability were properly alleged. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 6:18 pm by Eric
But, as I explain in my prior blog post, I think this should have been a 230(c)(2) dismissal, not a 230(c)(1) dismissal. [read post]