Search for: "B" Results 521 - 540 of 158,171
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Sep 2009, 2:35 am
 So, TPA will soon be a B corporation with an affiliated nonprofit. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 12:24 pm by Wendy Hickok Robinson
The New Orleans Chapter of the Federal Bar Association presents The 20th Annual Judge Alvin B. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 11:00 pm by David Vasella
Der Bundesrat schlägt vor, BöB 28 ("1 Die Beschwerde hat keine aufschiebende Wirkung. [read post]
29 May 2009, 11:38 pm
Prutch)Even with the new local B&B law, a state special use permit is required because a B&B is not an allowed use within the state agricultural district pursuant to HRS Chapter 205. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 6:18 am by Pavitra Bacon
On March 24, the CFPB announced a proposal to amend Regulation B requirements related to the collection of consumer ethnicity and race information, in order to resolve the differences between Regulation B and revised Regulation C. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 6:18 am by Pavitra Bacon
Pavitra Bacon On March 24, the CFPB announced a proposal to amend Regulation B requirements related to the collection of consumer ethnicity and race information, in order to resolve the differences between Regulation B and revised Regulation C. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 11:34 am
 Now it’s Bob’s turn, and here’s his post on 403(b) Service Agreements: “Harmonizing” the 403(b) Plan. [read post]
22 May 2008, 3:18 am
Regina v B Court of Appeal “The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, would not give the Crown leave to appeal unless it was seriously arguable, not that a judge in exercising his discretion or making his judgment in the course of a criminal trial might have decided differently, but that it was unreasonable for him to have done it in the way he had. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 10:38 am by Ross Davies
That is one way to think about the meaning behind the words of the actual, drier questions presented in Susan B. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 8:24 am
R v B and others: [2008] WLR (D) 296 “Where one of several defendants in the same criminal proceedings became unfit to stand trial before a jury had been empanelled there was nothing in principle to prevent a single empanelled jury subsequently proceeding to hear the trial of all the defendants, although in the case of the unfit defendant the jury would now be looking to the question whether he had committed the actus reus of the relevant offence. [read post]