Search for: "MATTER OF B P B P"
Results 701 - 720
of 5,341
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2014, 6:24 am
P. 12(b)(1).1 After considering the arguments made by both parties, the Court grants defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 5:07 am
§ 55-513(B). [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 12:51 pm
See § 66–5–205(A)-(B); 66–5–205.1(A)-(B). [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 4:30 am
Assume, nonetheless, that it’s the number of conflicts that matters. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:12 am
Then, too, there are the exceptions to the Rule 606(b) prohibition. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 4:37 am
Information, or anything for that matter, cannot be `obtained’ unless there is some planned action or effort involved. [read post]
14 May 2007, 5:23 am
Perkins and Jewell P. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 12:26 pm
The University of Kentucky stepped in and helped out with the trademark request and is taking the matter quite seriously. [read post]
22 Jan 2023, 10:10 am
More detail is provided in the Legal Note (p 22), edited extracts of which are reproduced below. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 7:24 am
Thus, familiarity7.b) with the FSTP-Test8) pays. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 8:32 am
B. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 3:51 am
(b) Section 7(p)(1) applies to such outside employment provided (1) The special detail work is performed solely at the employee’s option, and (2) the two employers are in fact separate and independent. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
Generally, the relationship has been judicially defined as a matter of “economic reality”—whether, based on the totality of the relationship, “the worker is economically dependent on the employer to work (thus, an employee) or is in a business for themselves (and is thus an independent contractor). [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 3:11 pm
P. 26(b)(2), defendants ask the Court to shift the costs of defendants' remaining electronic discovery to plaintiff. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 7:01 am
First, while it appears that Proposed Section 2(b) of the Act was not intended to apply to agreements falling under Chapter 2, the matter is not entirely free from doubt. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 9:01 am
Disability Discrimination Ms P defended and counterclaimed for discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010: (1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if— (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not… [read post]
12 Feb 2022, 5:42 am
(b)(1); DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 3:49 am
The district court granted AOL’s Rule 12( b)(3) motion holding that the forum selection clause “expressly requires that this controversy be adjudicated in a court in Virginia” and that “[p]laintiffs agreed the courts of Virginia have ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over any claims or disputes with AOL” thus rendering venue in California improper. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:50 pm
A does not require disqualification; B and C do. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 4:00 am
P. 16(b)(4) to modify the schedule to name a new expert. [read post]
