Search for: "Givens v. Hill" Results 681 - 700 of 2,087
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jan 2018, 8:17 am by Jonathan H. Adler
(For more on the banking angle, see this excellent paper by Alabama law professor Julie Hill.) [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 9:40 pm by The Regulatory Review
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Endrew F. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 9:40 pm by The Regulatory Review
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Endrew F. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:33 am by Richard T. Kaplar
It would be easy to frame this issue in classic policy terms of government regulation v. the marketplace. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:33 am by Richard T. Kaplar
It would be easy to frame this issue in classic policy terms of government regulation v. the marketplace. [read post]
” Flynn made “materially false statements and omissions,” including that (1) the Flynn Intel Group “did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project”; (2) “the Turkey project was focused on improving U.S. business organizations’ confidence regarding doing business in Turkey”; and (3) an op-ed that Flynn wrote and “published in The Hill on November 8, 2016 was written at his own… [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm by Wolfgang Demino
“In considering how to ensure an orderly succession for this independent agency,” Director Cordray explained in a statement, “I have also come to recognize that appointing the current chief of staff to the deputy director position would minimize operational disruption and provide for a smooth transition given her operational expertise. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm by Wolfgang Demino
“In considering how to ensure an orderly succession for this independent agency,” Director Cordray explained in a statement, “I have also come to recognize that appointing the current chief of staff to the deputy director position would minimize operational disruption and provide for a smooth transition given her operational expertise. [read post]
24 Nov 2017, 7:07 am by Brian Cordery
Comparing and contrasting the previous decisions of Menashe v William Hill [2003] and RIM v Motorola [2010], in the third judgment, the Judge held that the crucial question to ask was: where, in substance, was the alleged infringing process taking place? [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Given the [*2]absence of detailed facts, the legal malpractice cause of action should have been dismissed (see Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 AD3d 908, 910 [2016]; Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 126 AD3d at 1185-1186; Kreamer v Town of Oxford, 96 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2012]; compare Soule v Lozada, 232 AD2d 825, 825 [1996]). [read post]