Search for: "Limited Properties, Inc." Results 41 - 60 of 8,149
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2024, 5:13 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
RosadoIndex No. 152743/21 Appeal No. 1230 Case No. 2022-02719[*1]IntegrateNYC, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,vThe State of New York et al., Defendants-Respondents, Parents Defending Education, Intervenor Defendant-Respondent. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
RosadoIndex No. 152743/21 Appeal No. 1230 Case No. 2022-02719[*1]IntegrateNYC, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,vThe State of New York et al., Defendants-Respondents, Parents Defending Education, Intervenor Defendant-Respondent. [read post]
4 May 2024, 8:31 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on  here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. [read post]
3 May 2024, 4:11 pm by David Adelstein
 The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract by its failure to substantially redevelop property. [read post]
That is why, even in a more traditional encampment context (e.g., camping in parks where overnight camping is permitted), regulators often impose limits on how close people can camp to sensitive environmental areas (such as waterways) and limits on how many people can occupy a camp, and for how long.Again, that interest, while not often discussed, would be seen to be of obvious importance near medical facilities, where clean [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 1:53 pm by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
Such conduct may include, but is not limited to, willful damage to an employer’s property that results in damage of more than $50, or theft of employer property or property of a customer or invitee of the employer. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
After TASER International, Inc. successfully sued Phazzer Electronics for various violations of its intellectual property, the owners of Phazzer, in plain violation of the court's injunction, just wouldn't stop selling stun guns! [read post]