Search for: "Fine v. Fine" Results 5921 - 5940 of 16,012
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2014, 6:03 am by Adam Weinstein
  In total six firms paid $11 million in restitution and fines related to REIT sales. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 11:44 pm by Tessa Shepperson
London Borough of Camden v Foxtons Limited: [2017] The facts The London Borough of Camden (Camden) – one of the few Councils to actively pursue letting agents and seek to enforce the legislation (and good for them for doing it) were unhappy with Foxtons description of their fees as an ‘Administration Fee’ and proceeded to fine them. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 5:32 am by Timothy Powers O'Neill
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 5:32 am by Timothy Powers O'Neill
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 5:32 am by Timothy Powers O'Neill
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 11:02 am by Matt Murphy
Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
16 Jun 2012, 9:28 pm
FINRA contends that Hutson willfully violated its Article V, Section 2 (C) by-laws by not disclosing the criminal charge. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 10:01 am
Great fine arts community. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 11:31 pm by Jeff Gamso
They want him off the case.That's Kevin Fine, Judge of the 177th District Court in Harris County, Texas, presiding over the capital murder trial State of Texas v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:01 am by The Health Law Firm
This indictment seeks forfeiture of over $5 million in cash as well as a GMC Hum-V ("Hummer") vehicle. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 11:24 pm by Matthew Nied
The most controversial part of the Libel Legislation is found in sections 33 and 37 (the “Sections”), which concern seditious libel:  (1) Any person who a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act with a seditious intention; or b) utters any seditious words; or c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or d) imports any seditious publication, unless he has no reason… [read post]