Search for: "State v. E. E. B."
Results 7441 - 7460
of 10,086
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2011, 1:55 pm
It has been nearly a year since the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Morrision v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 12:25 pm
Distribution v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:15 am
Of the question: Did the Supreme Court Rule in Stanford v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:03 am
In Fazio v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 8:44 am
Beaver v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm
Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 5:19 am
In People v. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 7:33 am
If you care about the startup company ecosystem, I encourage you to give this question some thought and write the SEC. [1]Persons covered include (i) the issuer, (ii) any predecessor of the issuer; (iii) any affiliated issuer; (iv) any director, officer, general partner or managing member of the issuer; (v) any beneficial owner of 10% or more of any class of the issuer’s equity securities; (vi) any promoter connect with the issuer in any capacity at the time of such sale; (vii) any… [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 1:40 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 10:02 am
District Judge Irma E. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to… [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 2:00 pm
” The court reasoned, “[B]y licensing franchises within Iowa, KFC has received the benefit of an orderly society within the state and, as a result is subject to the payment of income taxes. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 1:00 pm
Paragraph 2(b) provides that generic restrictions with respect to the legal standards of the requesting State for processing personal data may not be imposed by the requested State as a condition under paragraph 2(a) to providing evidence or information. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 11:00 am
James E. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 7:42 am
The FPPC’s position means the following are outside of the scope of the second prong of the Competitive Bidding Process Exemption and, therefore, the exemption would not be available: Communicating with a California state pension plan before an RFP is actually issued, provided, however, that an investment adviser and its personnel may (a) inquire as to whether the state pension plan intends to contract out certain services and (b) respond to inquiries as to the… [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 3:28 pm
When the Court granted review in Global Tech Appliances, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 10:11 am
(ii) Is subject to any order, judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, entered within five years before such sale, that, at the time of such sale, restrains or enjoins such person from engaging or continuing to engage in any conduct or practice: (A) In connection with the purchase or sale of any security; (B) Involving the making of any false filing with the Commission; or (C) Arising out of the conduct of the business of an underwriter, broker, dealer, municipal… [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 7:21 am
B. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 4:51 am
[B]oth defendants affirmed in sworn affidavits that they did not share the password with anyone. [read post]
