Search for: "LONG ISLAND SAVINGS V US" Results 21 - 40 of 170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
For example, in 2016, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act was enacted to provide both a federal cause of action as well as enhanced remedies.iii On the other hand, state laws, including those in Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Washington and Rhode Island, have limited the other method used by employers---noncompete agreements---to protect their competitive advantage, and the Biden administration has promised to ban or limit them.iv While trade secret… [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 7:14 pm by nyinjuries
  We have offices in Manhattan and Long Island, handling cases in New York City, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and surrounding areas. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
At this point, Russell began a long recitation and did not receive questions for a while. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 6:51 am by admin
  –  and owns a home on Long Island, which the Harmons contend that they are effectively subsidizing. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 2:38 am by CMS
  Background A Cayman Islands company, Saad Investments Company limited (“SICL”), was the beneficiary of Cayman Island trusts. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 2:59 am
"  He ended up landing on the island of Vis on a runway only half as long as needed, but saving everyone on board.At about same time, and really not so far away, in Italy's Apennine Mountains, the U.S. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 10:01 am
City of Bainbridge Island This is a land use decision. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 1:54 pm by Bexis
  Certainly using the motion to dismiss route saved that company a lot of money. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 10:59 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 11:01 am by Eric Goldman
Court quashes 512(h) subpoena because the underlying publications were protected by fair use. [read post]