Search for: "Chow v. State"
Results 41 - 60
of 67
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2014, 4:54 pm
In analyzing whether the plaintiff is entitled to the information it seeks, the starting point of inquiry is CPL 720.35(2) which provides: Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court, all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the division of criminal justice services, relating to a case involving a youth who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, are confidential and may not be made available to… [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 7:51 am
Lawal v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 6:51 am
Lawal v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 5:32 am
Chow v. [read post]
9 May 2013, 1:48 am
With the rapid changes in technology and a myriad of regulatory frameworks that may be applicable, employee handbooks may need to be updated much more frequently than ever – especially with respect to the rapidly evolving world of social media: Savvy employers, especially those with multi-state operations, know that employment actions are regulated at the federal, state and even local level. [read post]
9 May 2013, 1:48 am
With the rapid changes in technology and a myriad of regulatory frameworks that may be applicable, employee handbooks may need to be updated much more frequently than ever – especially with respect to the rapidly evolving world of social media: Savvy employers, especially those with multi-state operations, know that employment actions are regulated at the federal, state and even local level. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 12:46 pm
This didn’t please the FDA, which sent a warning letter to AMARC, stating that since Poly-MVA isn’t FDA-approved, the customer testimonials essentially falsify the product as approved.Here's the letter:HomeInspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal InvestigationsEnforcement ActionsWarning LettersEnforcement ActionsWarning Letters2012-Amarc Enterprises 12/11/12Department of Health and Human ServicesPublic Health ServiceFood and Drug AdministrationLos Angeles… [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:53 am
In this week’s case (Chow-Hidasi v. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
United States Surgical Corp. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 2:50 pm
In Sony Music Entertainment v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 6:52 am
United States Surgical Corp. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 10:14 pm
Specifically, United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 3:41 pm
” See FCC v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 12:03 pm
Reading this reminded me of a 2005 case (Chow v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 2:17 pm
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/287556.con.doc.pdf State v . [read post]
11 May 2011, 12:14 pm
Lest any of you think that who bears the burden of proof doesn't really matter, take heed of the recent decision in Chow v. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 3:08 am
/Li Chow, D2007-0695 (WIPO July 11, 2007). [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 11:53 am
Noodle Weekend Much has happened since we last checked in on the hot Chow v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP finance) The UK IP Office issues a Virgin trademark ruling that contrasts the Israel approach (IP Factor) EWHC (Pat): Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires flexible approach to meaning of ‘same parties’: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
(Northborough, MA; George Forde, President) 16 Main Street Property Company (Northampton, MA; Thomas Chow, President) 1700 Main Street Inc. [read post]
