Search for: "B/T Enterprises"
Results 941 - 960
of 2,090
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2016, 3:45 pm
First, under the concept of “Enterprise Coverage”, the FLSA applies to all employees of any company that (a) has more than $500,000 in annual revenues and (b) is engaged in interstate commerce. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 3:24 am
Hoey’s case, in November 2013 he executed a one-page document oddly entitled Assignment of Stock and/or Propriety Interests, purporting to assign to his wife, Wendy Hoey, in consideration of the terms of a concurrent Separation Agreement, his ownership interests in certain realty along with: his FIFTY (50%) percent interest in the LLC’s known as 1 SOUTH FOREST AVENUE, LLC, which owns the buildings known as 1 South Forrest Ave, Rockville Center, New York, and… [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 3:24 am
Hoey’s case, in November 2013 he executed a one-page document oddly entitled Assignment of Stock and/or Propriety Interests, purporting to assign to his wife, Wendy Hoey, in consideration of the terms of a concurrent Separation Agreement, his ownership interests in certain realty along with: his FIFTY (50%) percent interest in the LLC’s known as 1 SOUTH FOREST AVENUE, LLC, which owns the buildings known as 1 South Forrest Ave, Rockville Center, New York, and… [read post]
9 Apr 2016, 4:48 am
GOV'T CODE § 312.002(b). [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 9:41 am
One of these entities was Hamby Enterprises Partnership, Ltd. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 4:30 pm
While the DoD has been vocal about its expectations regarding the protection and control of its data, the newly accessible plan is particularly helpful because it addresses “tactical-level” compliance, meaning those elements further down the chain away from the “enterprise” of the larger Department. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 1:25 pm
The crew of the USS Enterprise from “Star Trek. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
” Justice Emerson didn’t buy the argument by a long shot, pointing out initially that, under the January 2004 Amended Operating Agreement, no member could voluntarily withdraw for two years, i.e., before January 2006. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
” Justice Emerson didn’t buy the argument by a long shot, pointing out initially that, under the January 2004 Amended Operating Agreement, no member could voluntarily withdraw for two years, i.e., before January 2006. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
” Justice Emerson didn’t buy the argument by a long shot, pointing out initially that, under the January 2004 Amended Operating Agreement, no member could voluntarily withdraw for two years, i.e., before January 2006. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 9:55 pm
Circuit Merrick B. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 12:30 pm
A succinct articulation of the rule can be found in Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebäude-und Betriebstechnik GmbH Südwest Co., Management KG, B-292699.6, June 24, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 134 (upholding award to a joint venture even though the ownership of one member of the joint venture changed): [T]he record shows only that the corporate shares of SGM changed hands. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 8:26 am
Nobody in the academic world will complain if you use their ideas or quote their work — in fact, that’s very much the whole point of the enterprise. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 9:46 am
The AmeriKat once pressed a seal's button......it didn't end well. [read post]
12 Mar 2016, 7:44 am
This might be important b/c if you put it in category (2), order w/o law, you get presumptive benefits of that category—superiority to judicial proceedings in some cases—when they aren’t warranted. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 7:59 am
O que é de domínio público é que o fundamento básico das relações sociais está na relação entre o indivíduo e o ambiente social. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 1:55 am
* No strict liability for infringement in online advertising, says the CJEUThis post of mine is about the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision in Daimler AG Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft (C-179/2015). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 10:20 am
However, the evidence of actual confusion put forward by comic Enterprises was potentially very persuasive, and supported a finding of likelihood of confusion and infringement under s10(2)(b) of the Act.Infringement under s10(3) of the Act Lord Justice Kitchin - keeping usthe right way up about the wrong way aroundThere was no challenge on appeal as to whether Comic Enterprises had reputation in the mark by late 2009. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 4:27 pm
Jane B. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 7:17 pm
Don’t try this at home.) [read post]
