Search for: "CO.1. Means" Results 6721 - 6740 of 16,765
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2017, 7:00 am by Thomas Juneau
Trudeau and Trump, for example, attended a roundtable on the role of Canadian and U.S. women in business co-chaired by Ivanka Trump. [read post]
17 May 2017, 11:02 am by John Elwood
§ 921(a)(20)(B), means “capable of being punished by a term of imprisonment of two years or less,” or “subject to a term of imprisonment of two years or less. [read post]
16 May 2017, 12:30 pm by Dan Pinnington
While this article is primarily intended for litigators, some of the pitfalls that are discussed can be encountered by non-litigators. 1. [read post]
16 May 2017, 7:48 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Under this equal treatment principle, the Supreme Court ruled a court may invalidate an arbitration agreement based on “generally applicable contract defenses,” but not on legal rules that “apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. [read post]
15 May 2017, 10:17 am
 Therefore, talented patent litigator Amy Crouch (Simmons & Simmons) was on hand to summarize the evening's events:  An all women Supreme Court bench - a view ChIPs will be working towards replicating in practice"On a cloudy evening at the end of April, the Supreme Court was brightened by almost 100 men and women streaming into Court Room 1. [read post]
15 May 2017, 9:00 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Columbia Sportswear Co., 2017 WL 1957063, No. 15-cv-04543 (N.D. [read post]
15 May 2017, 6:56 am by NBlack
She is also the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. [read post]
14 May 2017, 10:00 pm by Dan Flynn
Federal release dates are based on a “good time” credit, which in Wilkerson’s case would mean she’d serve four years and four months for a March 10, 2020 release. [read post]
14 May 2017, 5:28 pm by Eugene Volokh
May 12, 2017), a three-judge panel ruled, on a 2-1 vote, that Adamson’s actions didn’t violate the ordinance (and thus avoided having to decide whether he had a First Amendment right, under the “compelled speech” doctrine, not to be forced to print messages of which he disapproved). 1. [read post]
14 May 2017, 11:54 am by Giles Peaker
Or, through the applicant’s ‘deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate’ under new s.193B and 193C (see below). [read post]
12 May 2017, 2:49 pm
Edwin is also required to avoid contact with his co-participant in the offense, and is prohibited from contacting him `by telephone, by texting, . . . by email or fax, or by any other electronic means. [read post]