Search for: "180s, Inc." Results 601 - 620 of 1,504
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2016, 5:26 am by Jon Hyman
Flambeau, Inc. required employees to submit to a health-risk assessment and a biometric test as a requirement for participating in the employer’s health insurance plan. [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 9:00 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, No. 15-652 (Patent Term Adjustment – whether the 180 day deadline applies; could bleed into admin law issues) Damages: STC, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 9:43 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, No. 15-652 (Patent Term Adjustment – whether the 180 day deadline applies; could bleed into admin law issues) Damages: STC, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 5:42 pm by Angelo A. Paparelli
—It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application, . . . [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 6:08 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, No. 15-652 (Patent Term Adjustment – whether the 180 day deadline applies) Innovention Toys, LLC v. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 8:55 am by WIMS
  Smith Statement on Bills to Block EPA Regs Inhofe Praises the House Voting to Block the President's Carbon Mandates Upton Kicks Off Debate on Landmark Energy Bill H.R.8 White House Statement of Administration Policy Veto Warning On H.R.8 More details on H.R.8(c)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 6:10 am by Joy Waltemath
Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit has regularly reaffirmed the “reasonably prudent” person standard in ADEA cases. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 5:12 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  While sixty (60) days was quite common for a while, more recent policy forms have extended this to as much as one hundred eighty (180) days. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 10:57 am by Larry
See, first sale valuationThis comes up in the context of American Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 5:29 am by Schachtman
No serious observer or scholar of the law of evidence can deny that the lower federal courts have applied Daubert and its progeny, and the revised Federal Rule of Evidence 702, inconstantly and inconsistently, in their decisions to admit or exclude proffered expert witness opinion testimony. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 6:36 am
––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 2575, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011)); Dorsey v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 6:45 pm
., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]);Zarr v Riccio, 180 AD2d 734, 735 [2d Dept 1992]). [read post]