Search for: "COOK v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT" Results 301 - 320 of 407
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2014, 4:00 am by Emma Durand-Wood
Thomas McDonnell blogged about “Murphy’s Law of Tax” and Ian Gamble described the findings in Henco Industries v. [read post]
27 Dec 2021, 10:05 pm by Bill Marler
” Indeed, in rejecting this argument, the USDA cited to its own court victory in defending its decision to treat E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant, despite vociferous industry objections[11]. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 1:10 pm by Michelle Yeary
  For example, they dismiss the holding in Dvora v. [read post]
31 Dec 2020, 9:03 pm by Joshua Burd
The county’s state’s attorney Kimberly Foxx responded to the Court’s decision by stating that her office “is unwavering in our commitment to oppose discrimination and stand up for immigrant families in Cook County. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 1:43 pm by WIMS
Supreme Court which decided the historic case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 12:45 pm by Ruth Levush
Supreme Court Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion in Katz v. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 7:43 am by Joy Waltemath
Supreme Court rejected the notion that such time was compensable under the FLSA, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-2001, and its “control clause,” specifically, compelled a different outcome in this class action wage suit brought by Apple retail employees in the state (Frlekin v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
(IPKat) EU favours disclosure of computer patents before standards are set (Intellectual Property Watch) Trade Marks Court of First Instance finds RAUTARUUKKI fails to satisfy acquired distinctiveness criterion: Rautaruukki Oyj v OHIM (Class 46) Court of First Instance finds original signature of famous Italian lutist Antonio Stradivari, in arte Stradivarius, of the 17th century, cannot be read by relevant consumers: T‑340/06 (Catch Us If You Can!!!) [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 2:29 pm by Alden Abbott
It may be assumed that today’s Supreme Court (which has deemed consumer welfare to be the lodestone of antitrust enforcement since Reiter v. [read post]