Search for: "MATTER OF A W A V" Results 5341 - 5360 of 8,375
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2011, 2:05 am by gmlevine
However, the Panel must render its decision within the confines of the Policy, which clearly requires that the Disputed Domain Name must be registered and used in bad faith,” Jowissa Watch Ltd. v. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 12:51 pm by Rick Hasen
Part V addresses a question Kaplow mentions frequently, but only in passing – the underlying norms a statutory command reflects. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 8:22 pm by David Leibowitz
People spell Leibowitz in a lot of interesting ways: Like these: David Leibowitz David Liebowitz David Lebowitz David Lebowicz David Libowich Lots of people want the “w” in my name to be a “v” and they pronounce it that way too. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 6:47 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Gustafson’s most high-profile litigation matter is her representation of the plaintiff in Young v. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 11:39 am
", an analytical dissection of a piece of recent judicial history, SOCAN v Canadian Association of Internet Providers, by Susanna H. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 7:44 am by Theodore J. Kobus III
F - Familiarize yourself with the members of your breach response team before the breach occurs G - Government has its hands in everything when it comes to privacy H - HIPAA/HITECH I -  IT is not the only one responsible for breaches-- it is a C-suite issue J - Joint Commission may ask you about your healthcare breach K - Kids' information is sensitive to parents no matter how low level you may think it is L - Legal landscape is constantly changing M - Mitigation of harm (credit… [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 5:35 pm by Stuart Benjamin
But they go on: [W]e conclude that, were the statute ambiguous, we would alternatively resolve this matter in the same way. [read post]
15 May 2007, 2:39 am
Bagley, of Bagley, Karpan, Rose & White, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Representing Appellee (Defendant): Dale W. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 6:22 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
" The Court of Appeals (Raggi, Droney and Matsumoto [D.J.]) sees it differently, at least for purposes of summary judgment, stating, "[w]hile these circumstances may support the defendant’s argument that a familial relationship existed, they do not, either individually or in combination, summarily preclude Velez from being an employee under the FLSA as a matter of law. [read post]