Search for: "Childs v. Gross"
Results 721 - 740
of 875
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2011, 8:19 am
`(B) MEASUREMENT- For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), there is no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety if the exception described in subparagraph (A) will result in no measurable increase in blood lead levels of a child. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 3:42 am
The facts in the second case, Vaughan v. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 6:53 pm
Murphy v. [read post]
19 Jul 2015, 6:52 pm
The plaintiff cites but one Connecticut decision--and research has failed to reveal any others--DeGolyer v. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm
Title: Placer Dome, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Watts, No. 07-2462 In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that the defendants' failure to supervise resulted in arrests without probable cause, illegal warrantless searches, and use of excessive force, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to establish that the actions of defendants amounted to supervisory encouragement, condonation or acquiescence, or gross negligence amounting to deliberate indifference. [read post]
16 Nov 2021, 9:01 pm
In Lanier v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 7:48 pm
V. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 8:08 pm
V. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 12:25 pm
The phrase “substantial control” is not defined in the CTA so further regulations should clarify its meaning.9 The legislation expressly excludes certain individuals from the definition of “beneficial ownership,” including (i) a minor child (as long as the child’s parent’s or guardian’s information is reported); (ii) an individual acting as an intermediary or agent on behalf of another; (iii) a person whose control over a reporting company… [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 1:17 pm
Here’s a gross oversimplification:1. [read post]
4 May 2022, 6:43 am
In the case of sensitive data of a known child, the data must be processed according to the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 12:25 pm
The phrase “substantial control” is not defined in the CTA so further regulations should clarify its meaning.9 The legislation expressly excludes certain individuals from the definition of “beneficial ownership,” including (i) a minor child (as long as the child’s parent’s or guardian’s information is reported); (ii) an individual acting as an intermediary or agent on behalf of another; (iii) a person whose control over a reporting company… [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 4:33 pm
This rule changed with the Kentucky Supreme Court’s opinion in Gentry v. [read post]
4 Apr 2015, 11:44 am
You could get married, divorced, have a child, get an additional job and so on. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 12:25 pm
The phrase “substantial control” is not defined in the CTA so further regulations should clarify its meaning.9 The legislation expressly excludes certain individuals from the definition of “beneficial ownership,” including (i) a minor child (as long as the child’s parent’s or guardian’s information is reported); (ii) an individual acting as an intermediary or agent on behalf of another; (iii) a person whose control over a reporting company… [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 12:11 pm
On 28 July 2022, there were hearings in ABC and Others v London Borough of Lambeth and SJU and Others v London Borough of Lambeth before Nicklin J and in Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen before Jay J. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 9:58 pm
As published in the April 2001 issue of Estate Planning (Note to reader: The Medicaid lookback/disqualification laws changed to 60 months on 2/8/06, after this article was published; otherwise, the rest of the article remains valid.) [read post]
