Search for: "Hall v. Fields" Results 401 - 420 of 476
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2010, 10:47 pm by admin
– Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, March 12, 2010 In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement and consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Wildearth Guardians: Wildearth Guardians v. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 2:08 pm by Brett Trout
Mensah’s inventions span the fields of fiber optics to guided vehicle systems. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 3:28 pm by georgbrem
“This is one more attempt to erase the history of the peoples of the former Soviet Union, including the heroic history, from historical memory,” Prime Minister Vladimir V. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 5:25 am
Level the Playing Field: Consider State Taxes when Developing Salary Caps in the Major Sports I. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:00 am
Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc (Class 46) (IPKat) EPO: Should green technology be subject to compulsory licensing? [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 1:10 am
Back in June 2007, IPBiz noted that a response of patent practitioners to KSR v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 11:31 pm
  To top it off, the Boston Braves used the Red Sox stadium, Fenway Park, as their home field in their 1914 Series appearance (their new one was under construction) and the Red Sox then used the Braves' new field as their home field in the Series a year later (it could accommodate more fans).Possible Law Analogy:    In FDA v. [read post]
19 Apr 2009, 8:32 pm
  The argument will be held in Ivy Hall, at Ivy Tech, in Lafayette.At 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 21, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear argument in Jennings Water, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 6:10 am
A huge headache and hassle to make $200 or whatever shitlaw wills go for in your town.Or you could try the nightmarish (and all but totally dead now) field of residential real estate closings. [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 11:56 am
CAFA changed the playing field for diversity cases, allowing defendants to remove cases where there is “minimal” diversity (i.e., one member of the putative class is from a different State than one of the defendants), and where the total amount in controversy (not just the amount sought by the named plaintiffs) exceeds $5 million. [read post]