Search for: "AT&T Services Inc. " Results 6901 - 6920 of 17,732
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2016, 1:51 am by Jon Gelman
In August 2007, plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez, applied for a job with defendant Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., t/a Raymour & Flanigan. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 12:41 pm by Nabeel Ahmad
The CDPA also requires that if a company experiences a data breach and decides to offer “identity theft prevention and mitigation services” to affected persons, then it must provide these services to affected persons for at least 12 months and at no cost. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 8:30 am by Eric Goldman
Losing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike normally doesn’t dictate that the defendant will ultimately lose the case. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 7:32 am by Steven Koprince
OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of Costar Services, Inc., SBA No. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 7:08 am by Joy Waltemath
Member Miscimarra dissented in part, once again urging the Board to do away with its “reasonably construe” standard altogether (Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., June 10, 2016). [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 7:40 am by Aaron Rubin
Transunion Corporation, a recent Seventh Circuit case, demonstrates that half measures won’t cut it. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 10:00 pm by Coral Beach
Toronto-based Saputo Inc. recalled various sizes of Neilson brand partly skimmed chocolate milk because of Listeria monocytogenes contamination. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 5:34 am
  The District Court Judge begins by noting that “[t]his arises from allegations that defendants intentionally accessed a protected computer database in order to obtain information about plaintiff's patients and to accuse plaintiff falsely of Medicaid fraud. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 10:30 pm by The Public Employment Law Press
Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS): Contracted Programs With Puerto Rican Organization to Motivate, Enlighten and Serve Addicts Inc. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 2:43 pm by Florian Mueller
Some companies just want to ensure the Supreme Court won't weaken design patents too much, but they don't say the law of the smartphone should follow from the law of the spoon. [read post]