Search for: "Matter of Will of Smith" Results 7541 - 7560 of 10,934
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2011, 5:15 am by Jon Hyman
– from Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider Employer-Sponsored Wellness Programs under GINA – from Employment Matters Blog Eyewitness Evidence Critique May Help In Harassment Defense – from Employer Defense Law Blog Thou Shalt Not—When Can Religion Be Considered in Employment? [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 5:11 am by Susan Brenner
Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 4:30 am
  In an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that the common stock is a covered security, the plaintiffs argued that the stock must actually be traded to qualify, and cited Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 4:30 am
    In an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that the common stock is a covered security, the plaintiffs argued that the stock must actually be traded to qualify, and cited Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 1:44 am
   If you shoot an arrow in the air, where it lands, not where you intended it to land, is all that matters. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 9:44 pm by KC Johnson
The William Kennedy Smith case, in which all sides admitted that sexual contact occurred, and in which a reasonable person could (though I’d argue shouldn’t) conclude that a sexual assault likely took place; d.) [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 9:43 pm by Joshua Wright
  For the same reasons the exclusion claim would be rejected post-merger on legal grounds if we accept the market definition alleged by the DOJ, exclusion is unlikely as a matter of economics. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 9:06 pm by Josh Wright
  For the same reasons the exclusion claim would be rejected post-merger on legal grounds if we accept the market definition alleged by the DOJ, exclusion is unlikely as a matter of economics. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:52 am by scanner1
The Montana Supreme Court has issued an Opinion in the following matter: DA 10-0638, 2011 MT 216, PATRICK and PAMELA SMITH, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:00 am by Mike Maslanka
Michael Maslanka is a partner in the Dallas, Texas, office of Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 1:05 am
", the choice was between (i) yes, (ii) it doesn't matter, (iii) no]. [read post]