Search for: "Does 1-58"
Results 541 - 560
of 2,951
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2022, 6:47 am
In its claim for damages, Plaintiff sought recovery of additional attorneys’ fees incurred by having to hire new counsel due to the negligence of L’ Abbate (NYSCEF 1 ,52) and disgorgement of attorneys’ fees paid to L’ Abbate since the inception of L’ Abbate’s allegedly negligent conduct and breaches of its duty, including a $2.0 million self-insured retention paid by Marcum (NYSCEF 1 ,57-58). [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:54 am
Relations, 58 AD3d 1095The Governor's Office of Employee Relations denied Judy M. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 5:35 am
However, the good faith exception saved this search warrant (on a 2-1 vote). [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 4:31 am
The Attorney General responded as follows in Opinion 12-58: 1. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 12:22 pm
Id. at 58. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 3:00 am
Balentine, 833 S.W.2d at 58. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 5:07 am
A large employer will be subject to tax penalties if: (1) the employer does not offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan and an employee is eligible for health coverage assistance and enrolls in a State insurance exchange (1/12 of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 assessed monthly); or (2) the employer does offer minimum essential… [read post]
25 Sep 2012, 11:37 am
A large employer will be subject to tax penalties if: (1) the employer does not offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan and an employee is eligible for health coverage assistance and enrolls in a State insurance exchange (1/12 of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 assessed monthly); or (2) the employer does offer minimum essential coverage under an… [read post]
25 Sep 2012, 12:37 pm
A large employer will be subject to tax penalties if: (1) the employer does not offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan and an employee is eligible for health coverage assistance and enrolls in a State insurance exchange (1/12 of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 assessed monthly); or (2) the employer does offer minimum essential coverage under an… [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 6:16 am
Scheiner, Attorneys for the Injured, at 1-800-646-1210. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 1:59 pm
The questions before the CJEU amounted to the following: 1. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 7:44 am
This post attempts to explain some key points that I hope will be part of this conversation.1. [read post]
20 Dec 2007, 4:21 am
See id., at 455-58. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 4:00 am
Does history set the context for the present and the future? [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 8:32 am
Eshar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 11:23 pm
With respect to Exhibit 57 in particular, Agent Taylor testified that the e-mail was submitted to the server at 2:23:58, a version created for defendant at 2:23:58, and the version so created delivered to defendant at 2:23:58. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 9:00 am
” It reasoned that “[k]nowing that industry safety standards in general are important to consumers’ purchasing decisions does nothing to predict whether consumers might be dissuaded from buying a ladder that does not meet current ANSI standards” because Mr. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 2:43 pm
How long does it take for the CJEU to decide a case? [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 2:54 am
As the author rightly points out at the onset of his analysis, there are things that economic perspectives, however useful they may be, simply cannot address (p. 58). [read post]
24 Sep 2021, 2:34 pm
Not only does the trade mark owner bear the burden of producing evidence to establish such use, but the trade mark owner should know that the ‘reputation’ of the mark does not mean that proving such use is guaranteed to succeed. [read post]
