Search for: "Branch Banking and Trust Company v. E" Results 21 - 35 of 35
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Apr 2013, 3:33 pm by Employment Lawyers
  The Director also told her that the position would be filled as a civilian contractor through an outside company. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 8:57 pm
Such customer funds when deposited with any bank, trust company, clearing organization or another futures commission merchant shall be deposited under an account name which clearly identifies them as such and shows that they are segregated as required by the Act and this part. [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 9:16 am by Roshonda Scipio
Finn.Finn, John E.Chantilly, VA : Teaching Co., c2006.KF4750 .F56 2006 DVDCivil RightsKF372 .J36 2010Root and branch : Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, and the struggle to end segregation / Rawn James, Jr.James, Rawn.New York, N.Y. : Bloomsbury Press, 2010.Civil RightsKF4155 .S77 2010Mendez v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am by Steven M. Taber
Department of Justice and the South Coast Air Quality Management District announced that Lifoam Industries, Inc. will pay $450,000 in fines, claiming the company violated the federal Clean Air Act and state air quality laws at its polystyrene manufacturing facility at 2340 E. 52 Street in Vernon, Calif. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:20 pm by carie
”On September 9th last year, Stevens engaged in a classic version of advocacy-by-interrogation during the argument of Citizens United v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 10:14 am by Hilde
”On September 9th last year, Stevens engaged in a classic version of advocacy-by-interrogation during the argument of Citizens United v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Branch, No. 06-4257 Conviction and sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) there was no question that the police were allowed to detain defendant after witnessing him commit a traffic violation; and 2) during this detention the police formed a "reasonable suspicion" of ongoing criminal activity that justified extension of the traffic stop; and 3) defendant's other claims were without merit. [read post]