Search for: "J R Group L L C" Results 401 - 420 of 909
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2013, 1:35 pm by Roshonda Scipio
Smits, Maastricht University, The Netherlands and University of Helsinki, Finland.K48 .E42 2012 Comparative LawExclusionary rules in comparative law / Stephen C. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 3:00 am
 2-c (The Members Group). 3-o (Ketchum). 4-m (ProCure). 5-j (Columbus Salame). 6-d (Callaway). 7-b (Bridgestone). 8-a (Deutsche Bank). 9-f (SanDisk). 10-g (American Express). 11-n (Peak Estate Vineyards). 12-k (Shane). 13-h (Microsoft). 14-j (Mizuno). 15-l (Blue Vase Securities). [read post]
22 Oct 2022, 12:38 pm by Drew Falkenstein
For example, a research study done by the Listeria Study Group found that L. monocytogenes grew from at least one food specimen in the refrigerators of 64% of persons with a confirmed Listeria infection (79 of 123 patients), and in 11% of more than 2,000 food specimens collected in the study. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 10:00 pm by Doug Austin
Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
The categories, and the rules that govern each one, are spelled out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), as amended in 2000 by the Child Citizenship Act (CCA).Section 301(c) of the INA provides, for example, that a person born outside of the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents acquires citizenship at birth as long as at least one of the parents “has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 7:53 pm by Michael Geist
A joint resolution on Transparency and State of Play of ACTA negotiations from virtually all party groups in the European Parliament was tabled earlier today. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
The Supreme Court explained, absurdly, that the insurance program “divides potential recipients into two groups—pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. . . . [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 2:49 pm by Anthony Zaller
Border Transportation Group, LLC (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 558, explained that “Dynamex makes clear that the question in part C is not whether [Border Transportation] prohibited or prevented [plaintiff] from engaging in an independently established business. [read post]