Search for: "Crop v. Crop" Results 21 - 40 of 1,464
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
And in cert denial news, we are sad that the Supreme Court will not take up Pollreis v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 5:55 am by Yousuf Syed Khan
These include foodstuffs, agricultural areasfor the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works. [read post]
16 May 2024, 1:24 pm by bklemm@foley.com
The actuarial statement is based upon the plan actuary’s (i) reconciliation of census data, (ii) review of assumptions and experience study, (iii) review of actuarial methods, (iv) review of liabilities, (v) review of contribution calculations and (vi) review of the valuation report. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:29 am by Eleonora Rosati
The burden is therefore placed on the courts to triage these issues for the time being with the definitive outcome of Getty Images v Stability AI being eagerly awaited.Turning to training, a different perspective was offered from the current state of law within the European Union. [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:43 am by INFORRM
The defendant admitted sharing the images, but argued that he cropped out sexual or intimate details and shared the images to help women on X to ident [read post]
1 May 2024, 9:04 pm by Dan Flynn
 The crop contributes more than $335 million to the state economy. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 2:12 pm by Dylan Gibbs
It’s not all bad for the above-average crop. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 10:01 pm by Donald Dinnie
Normadien Farms (PTY) Ltd v SAFIRE Crop Protection Co-operative Limited (8960/2016P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 6 (26 January 2023) [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 6:05 pm by Mark Ashton
The judges you will see are the cream of the interview crop. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 11:15 pm by Patrick Bracher (ZA)
[Zurich American Insurance Co. v Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, case no 135,2023 in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (February 26, 2024)] [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 7:26 am by centerforartlaw
Instead, Judge Stein ruled that Prince’s modifications to Graham’s photograph—one line of text and spatial differences in cropping and scale—were insufficiently transformative. [read post]