Search for: "State v. F. T."
Results 701 - 720
of 18,390
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2023, 10:56 am
In Cyntec Co. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:15 am
Ltd., 445 F. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 3:12 pm
However, in Holder v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 1:06 pm
See United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 9:37 am
State Lands Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 476, 496.) [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 8:46 am
The case is State v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 8:02 am
Evonik Corp., 620 F. [read post]
15 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
In 1986, just four years after the passage of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court held that while the Charter doesn’t apply directly to courts or the common law — at least in the context of purely private litigation — it has residual relevance when it comes to the common law’s application and development (RWDSU v Dolphin Delivery). [read post]
14 Oct 2023, 12:25 pm
., LLC v. [read post]
14 Oct 2023, 9:15 am
“[T]he existence of a valid business relationship (not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract)” City of Rock Falls v. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 3:06 pm
In Galaviz, v. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 12:12 pm
Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 9:35 am
I really couldn’t care less; it happens, and it happens a lot.) [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 3:30 pm
Nguyen v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 12:44 pm
You can’t trust them. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 9:25 am
”[12] Importantly, there is no presumption of cost reasonableness.[13] If an initial review of the facts results in the Government challenging a specific cost, the contractor has the burden to prove that the cost is reasonable.[14] The FAR provides that whether a cost is reasonable depends on a “variety of considerations and circumstances,” including the following: Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the… [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 8:26 am
Clemente Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 7:55 am
Co., 334 F. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am
The patent in suit was revoked after opposition proceedings instituted by Novartis AG ("opponent 1", later "respondent I") and F. [read post]