Search for: "1-8 Doe" Results 9581 - 9600 of 32,275
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2019, 6:22 am by Simmons Hanly Conroy
After analyzing nearly 1 million bills introduced in the last 8 years from all 50 states, they found: At least 10,000 bills introduced by lawmakers were almost entirely copied from model legislation. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 2:17 am by Bettina Clefsen
The Federal Patent Court does not support this line of argument. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 12:17 pm by Rachael Hanna
” Dixon cited to 10 U.S.C. 949j(a)(1), which incorporates Article III standards, including the Due Process Clause, into the military commissions. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 10:59 am by Camilla Hrdy
” But it turned out the dried milk was not actually as good as real milk. (8) (citing case). [read post]
  An activity qualifies as secondary agriculture only if it (1) is more akin to agriculture than manufacturing, (2) is subordinate to the farming operations involved, and (3) does not amount to an independent business. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:30 am by Ilya Somin
Here are a few examples (with spoilers largely avoided): 1. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:30 am by Ilya Somin
Here are a few examples (with spoilers largely avoided): 1. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 1:11 am by Stephen Page
Does that mean appointing them to a State court also, and in the process bumping up their pays and status? [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 4:52 pm by INFORRM
The succinct 22-page judgment contains two very clear messages to lawyers and litigants: (1) don’t be overly analytical and (2) context is everything. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442 (2007). [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 3:27 pm by Alka Bahal
EB-4:  EB-4 El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras advance one week to a Final Action Date of March 8, 2016, and EB-4 Mexico advances three months to a Final Action Date of April 1, 2018. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 2:13 pm by Keahn Morris and John Bolesta
On exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, the Board agreed with the judge and found the new employer’s refusal to hire the four incumbent employees to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) because it was motivated by anti-union animus and the employer failed to proffer any credible non-discriminatory explanation for its adverse hiring decisions. [read post]