Search for: "R L L" Results 8841 - 8860 of 43,207
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2018, 5:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins
  A critical question in this case was whether the treatment of the decedent's addiction amounted to a treatment of a mental illness with respect to each particular Defendant.Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.I sent thanks to Attorney Cynthia L. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 4:09 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Por su parte, la Cooperativa y Vissepó (en conjunto) sometieron una Moción en réplica de moción de desestimación de 30 de marzo de 2016, en la cual alegaron que la solicitud del Municipio era improcedente porque el Tribunal ya había atendido sus planteamientos. [read post]
4 Jul 2018, 9:02 pm by Joe Whitworth
“It is also likely that the extent of this outbreak has been underestimated since the outbreak was identified through sequencing and only a subset of the EU/EEA countries routinely use this advanced technique to characterize L. monocytogenes isolates,” said the agencies. [read post]
4 Jul 2018, 8:06 am
François Delerue (Institut de Recherche stratégique de l’École Militaire) has posted an ESIL Reflection on The Codification of the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations: A Matter for the ILC? [read post]
4 Jul 2018, 4:00 am by Administrator
D’une part, le principe voulant que l’indemnisation du préjudice soit intégrale. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 9:00 pm by Laurent Teyssèdre
La Chambre se pose la question de savoir si A6 peut être considéré comme état de la technique le plus proche, et conclut que le simple fait qu'il appartienne à un domaine [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 2:03 pm
La récente opinion contraire du « National Labor Relations Board” est ici rejetée. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 4:25 am by Embajador Microjuris al Día
Luis Pomales Arzuaga alega que la rueda de detenidos fue sugestiva porque los agentes que usaron eran más bajitos que él y no tenían barba como él. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 1:49 pm by ADeStefano
The lower court denied plaintiff’s motion and the Second Department affirmed finding that “[l]iability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and plaintiff knew he was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident”. [read post]