Search for: "State v. G. G." Results 681 - 700 of 11,993
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2023, 10:03 am by Amy Howe
The announcement that the justices had granted review in United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 5:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in that their delays in prosecuting the underlying action prevented him from being able to collect on the judgment that was eventually entered against the contractor (see Jean-Paul v Rosenblatt, 208 AD3d at 653; Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., 165 AD3d 1023, 1024; Oberkirch v Charles… [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 12:57 am by Rose Hughes
"(G 1/92, r. 1.4, emphasis added)The Board of Appeal in the present referring case identified divergence in how Boards of Appeal have interpreted G 1/92 in view of this paragraph. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 3:11 am by Jan von Hein
All in all, there are many issues where one must hope for reasonable clarifications by the ECJ   G. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 12:29 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The decision discusses alleged conflicting or at least diverging application of G 1/92, as well as G 1/92 itself, in detail. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:49 pm by Keith Szeliga and Emily Theriault
DCAA’s Organization DCAA’s organizational structure consists of a Headquarters, four Corporate Audit Directorates (CADs) organized by major contractors, three geographical regions (Eastern, Central and Western) for other contractors, and a Field Detachment that focuses on classified work.[14] Overall, DCAA has approximately 230 offices located throughout the United States, Europe, and the Middle East.[15] DCAA’s Headquarters is located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.[16]… [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 3:09 pm by Jaikaran Singh and Kelsey Finn
  In McGinity, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative consumer class, brought state law consumer protection claims against Procter & Gamble (P&G) for violations under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). [read post]