Search for: "State v. E. E. B."
Results 8441 - 8460
of 10,077
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2010, 10:14 pm
”Further, 4 NYCRR 5.3(b), which applies to employees of the State as an employer, provides, in relevant part, that “... when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his [or her] termination shall be… [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 7:34 pm
”[22] This will results in higher state deficits and lower reimbursement rates. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 2:00 pm
Arnold, JudgeRepresenting Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina Kerin, Appellate Counsel; and David E. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 5:44 am
§ 300aa-23(e). [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 2:10 am
RAY v. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 1:14 am
The opinion in SEC v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 3:53 pm
B. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 3:53 pm
B. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 3:18 pm
From Arthur v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 12:11 pm
” United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 10:16 am
§ 102(b). [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 10:14 am
In that spirit, Roberts last week denounced President Obama’s criticism of the Court in his State of the Union address, saying that the occasion had “degenerated to a political pep rally. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 5:44 am
Still, if you would like to inspire or provoke the IPO to intervene please e-mail policy@ipo.gsi.gov.uk before 22 March 2010. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 6:00 am
V. [read post]
13 Mar 2010, 4:03 am
" (Exhibits, Respondent's Exhibit B at 11.) [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 10:05 pm
This was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called John Doe v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 11:38 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 11:10 am
Authored by: Christopher E. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 9:00 am
Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:09 am
(Docket Report) (271 Patent Blog) District Court E D Texas: Defendant may not present jury argument concerning KSR’s change to obviousness standard: Datatreasurycorp v Wells Fargo & Co et al (Docket Report) District Court E Texas: Entire operating system cannot serve as royalty base where only the workspace switching feature is accused of infringement: IP Innovation, LLC. et al v. [read post]
