Search for: "State v. Leach" Results 21 - 40 of 225
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2012, 12:24 pm by Hunton & Williams LLP
” “Covered entities” as defined in the Toomey Bill do not include financial institutions subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or HIPAA-covered entities, which are exempt from the bill’s requirements. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 5:12 pm by Matt Sundquist
During Monday’s oral argument in Astrue v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:00 am by Matt Sundquist
” David Hudson, analyzing United States v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 1:27 pm
Bernard stated that he was unaware whether this data was available or had been analyzed. [read post]
5 May 2016, 7:45 am by Laura Donohue
The controversy over the Second Bank of the United States, ostensibly settled in McCullough v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 9:35 am by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 11:06 am by Kate Fort
’s (“Barrick”) Cortez Hills Project (“Project”), a large open pit, cyanide-leach gold mine on Mt. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 11:09 pm by Shelton Abramson
”  S.3333 would not apply to financial institutions that are covered under Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or covered entities that are subject to breach notification requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).The bill contains two basic requirements. [read post]
Entities exempted from the Act include (i) agencies, commissions, districts, etc. of the state or political subdivisions, (ii) nonprofits, (iii) higher education, (iv) national securities associations, (v) financial institutions or data subject to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), and (vi) hospitals as defined under Connecticut law. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 10:01 am by Michael Ginsborg
State Senator Daylin Leach has championed marriage equality in the state legislature, having introduced SB 935 that would establish it. [read post]