Search for: "Carolina Contracting Inc" Results 781 - 800 of 852
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jan 2009, 8:22 am
Inland American Winston Hotels, Inc.: The issue here is whether a whether a development agreement was a binding contract or an “agreement to agree. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Inc., 307 S.C. 413, 417, 415 S.E.2d 428, 430 (Ct. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 11:33 pm
Cullen issued his decision March 4, 2008. *** Case Farms of North Carolina, Inc. (11-CA-21378, 21379; 353 NLRB No. 26) Morganton, NC Sept. 30, 2008. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 4:30 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 10:13 pm
  Appeal from jury verdict finding breach of contract to pay bonus compensation and existence of bonus agreement and violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 2:45 pm
No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089 (1990), Congress extended the deadline for North Carolina and Alabama to implement the program to October 1, 2002, without any corresponding explanation for the special treatment. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 9:37 pm
Forklift Pro, Inc.: permissible geographic and temporaral scope of a confidentiality agreement (under South Carolina law). [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 8:07 am
: (IP finance), Technical assistance a key point of discussion at TRIPS Council: (Intellectual Property Watch), WIPO turmoil as new DG’s future comes under threat: (IAM), WIPO to host inter-regional forum to explore strategies to enhance development and service-orientation of IP offices: (WIPO), Controversy over lack of transparency and overreaching enforcement provisions in ACTA: (Spicy IP), (Spicy IP)   Global - Trade Marks / Domain Names / Brands World anti-counterfeiting day:… [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 4:34 pm
A recent case handed down by the North Carolina Supreme Court is likely to have a significant impact on how construction contracts are drafted in North Carolina.In Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 10:28 am
  He argued that since the parties had agreed to the application of North Carolina law, there was no reason for the Court to reach the issue whether the Act has extraterritorial effect.The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, relying on venerable North Carolina Supreme Court precedent that "every statute is confined in its operation to the persons, property, rights, or contracts, which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature which… [read post]