Search for: "Exist Inc" Results 6741 - 6760 of 25,379
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Scott Weier and Office Solutions, Inc., sets out the state law applicable to libel and slander claims. [read post]
Scott Weier and Office Solutions, Inc., sets out the state law applicable to libel and slander claims. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 6:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
Key Findings Forty-five states and the District of Columbia collect statewide sales taxes. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 10:37 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
A flurry of activity in the House Ways & Means Committee and other Congressional committees over the past few weeks signals the advisability of keeping a close eye on health care and health benefit reform proposals this Summer in anticipation of both the Fall health benefit enrollment and renewal season and the mid-term November Congressional elections. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 2:45 am
See In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB 2012) [precedential]. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 12:00 pm by Robert Liles
Is Your Urogynecology, OB/GYN or Multidisciplinary Practice Prepared for a Medicare Biofeedback Claims Audit or a Pelvic Floor Therapy Claims Audit? [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 12:00 pm by Robert Liles
Is Your Urogynecology, OB/GYN or Multidisciplinary Practice Prepared for a Medicare Biofeedback Claims Audit or a Pelvic Floor Therapy Claims Audit? [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 7:35 am by Stephan Skepnek
Pursuant to FAR 9.505, certain businesses may be disqualified from the bid process if they have an “unequal access” OCI, which exists where an offeror obtains non-public information that may be competitively useful. [read post]
The cases, listed newest to oldest, and the Court’s summaries are as follows: Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 7:07 am by Joy Waltemath
Noting that disparate impact claims under Title VII challenge “a facially neutral policy or practice that causes a disparate impact on a protected group, even if the employer has no intent to discriminate,” the court observed that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]