Search for: "JOHN DOE #1, an individual" Results 4281 - 4300 of 5,082
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2010, 1:40 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Panel #1: Tenet = Professional journalism must be saved. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 8:45 am by Lyle Denniston
  The oral argument was in John Doe # 1, et al., v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:26 pm by Will Patton
”  The Secretary of State was poised to release the names, when a group named “Protect Marriage Washington” and two individual signatories to the referendum petition (John Doe #1 and #2) sought a preliminary injunction in Federal District Court to stop the release. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 12:31 pm by Lyle Denniston
Shortly after 10 a.m. on Wednesday, after decisions are released, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in John Doe # 1, et al., v. [read post]
While the McLean valuations were being conducted, iGov expanded the size of its board from three members to five, adding Vincent Salvatori and John Vinter as directors. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 1:10 pm by Adrian Lurssen
For your reference, here's a look at the many legal implications of President Obama's Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) signed into law on March 18, 2010: The HIRE Act: A JD Supra Business Law Brief Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act Signed Into Law...The Act exempts a qualified employer from paying the employer's share of the social security employment taxes (6.2 percent of the first $106,800 of wages) for wages paid in 2010 for any new employee hired… [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 4:52 am by Sam E. Antar
 While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 2:39 am by Lawrence Solum
  One of these is the development of social contract theory in the political philosophy of John Rawls. [read post]
17 Apr 2010, 2:38 am by SHG
  Via John Hochfelder, the Appellate Division, Second Department, holds that the jury that found for the plaintiff, Pedro Acosta (whose name isn't really Pedro Acosta, as if that's a big deal in Brooklyn) and awarded him $1 million for his damages was, well, nuts. [read post]