Search for: "Unknown Does 1-10" Results 361 - 380 of 1,562
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2020, 8:07 am by Joanna Herzik
The original check does not clear and is dishonored. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 2:30 pm by Daniel Harawa
The post Case preview: When does a statutory “judgment bar” prevent lawsuits against federal officers for constitutional violations? [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 11:54 am by Josh Blackman
So would the same apply to a 10 university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage? [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 5:01 am by Kelsey Landau
Here, the United States is a global laggard: Not only does the country not have a public beneficial ownership registry, but it also does not collect beneficial ownership information in any capacity, leaving such information unknown even to law enforcement officials. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 8:17 am by Marcus Evans (UK) and Janine Regan (UK)
 In particular, the UK Government referred to: (1) Article 4(2) in the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which states that “national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State”; and (2) Article 1(3) of the ePrivacy Directive which states that the ePrivacy Directive “does not apply to activities that fall outside of the TEU…such as…activities concerning public security, defence, State security”. [read post]
14 Oct 2020, 2:47 pm by Evan Brown
John Does (1-10) et al., 2020 WL 6042289 (D.N.J. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 10:20 am by Phil Dixon
Where (as happened here) the State does not object, the Court of Appeals may exercise jurisdiction by granting the petitions for writ of certiorari. [read post]
The court concludes that, as written, the proposed minimization procedures for the four agencies, in conjunction with the querying procedures for those agencies, satisfy statutory requirements and additionally that their querying procedures satisfy the requirements of Section 702(f)(1). [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 1:34 pm by Joanna Herzik
The original check does not clear and is dishonored. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
It has been re-affirmed in the Court of Appeal in modern times in Holley v Smyth [1998] 1 All ER 852 and post the Human Rights Act in Greene v Associated Newspapers [2005] 2 WLR 281. [read post]
  In CDPH guidance updated on July 31, 2020, the CDPH states that for symptomatic cases, the infectious period is up to 10 days after onset and for asymptomatic cases, the CDPH recommends isolating for 10 days. [read post]
  In CDPH guidance updated on July 31, 2020, the CDPH states that for symptomatic cases, the infectious period is up to 10 days after onset and for asymptomatic cases, the CDPH recommends isolating for 10 days. [read post]