Search for: "E v. G" Results 4121 - 4140 of 5,877
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Nov 2011, 8:07 am by John Palley
L. 107-16, title V, Sec. 532(c)(15), (d), title IX,     Sec. 901, June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 75, 150, temporarily struck out     item 2604 “Credit for certain State taxes”. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 5:50 pm by INFORRM
In its recent judgment in Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez v MGN Ltd (25 October 2011), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union has laid down a radical new rule of jurisdiction over torts committed online, giving claimants the choice of suing in their home courts. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 12:40 pm
Sections 35 and 35A have been considered recently by this Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:12 pm by James R. Marsh
A child who has posed for a camera must go through life knowing that the recording is circulating within the mass distribution system for child pornography.13 The Court reaffirmed this truism in Ashcroft v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 10:35 am by Alexandre Atheniense
O caso do vereador de Belo Horizonte, Gêra Ornelas, que apareceu de cueca no seu gabinete na Câmara Municipal em um vídeo, trás a tona a polêmica dos vexames em vídeos divulgados pela internet. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 9:16 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  Annual Compensation – 401(a)(17)/404(l) 250,000 245,000 245,000 Elective Deferrals – 402(g)(1) 17,000 16,500 16,500 Catch-up Contributions – 414(v)(2)(B)(i) 5,500 5,500 5,500 Defined Contribution Limits – 415(c)(1)(A) 50,000 49,000 49,000 ESOP Limits – 409(o)(1)(C) 1,015,000200,000 985,000195,000 985,000195,000 Other  HCE Threshold – 414(q)(1)(B) 115,000 110,000 110,000 Defined Benefit Limits – 415(b)(1)(A)… [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:22 am by lawmrh
(g) file a notice of change of judge under Rule 10.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, for an improper purpose, such as obtaining a trial delay or other circumstances enumerated in Rule 10.2(b). [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:00 am by Bexis
Feb. 16, 1996) (“[g]iven the lack of evidence that [the prescriber] ever consulted or relied on defendants’ package insert warnings in treating plaintiff, it cannot be said that those warnings played any role in the doctor’s decision to prescribe”); William Beaumont Hospital v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 7:44 am by Theodore J. Kobus III
  Since the ASHRM conference, I have received many requests for my list and decided to publish them here: A - Accept that it will happen to you B - Breach response policies are not only mandatory, they are helpful C - Compliance with policies and procedures is critical D - Data breach Fridays--the breach call always comes in at 6pm on a Friday E - Empathize with your customers/patients/employees--how are they going to react to your response? [read post]