Search for: "CHANDLER v. LACK"
Results 81 - 100
of 121
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2021, 8:14 am
WG Chandler Villas SH LLC, 2021 WL 1087200 (D. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
For example, it has already been ruled that an invention must have a “credible” or “plausible” technical effect at the date of filing, and its absence is sanctioned on the grounds of lack of inventive step (e.g., TGI Paris, October 6, 2009, RG n°07/16446, Teva v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 3:00 pm
Beck v. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 6:15 am
Arguing for a small church in Arizona and its pastor challenging a sign law in the case of Reed v. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 4:39 am
City of Miami and Wells Fargo & Co. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Chandler, No. 07-1583 A conviction and sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to drug related charges are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the conversion of cash to a drug quantity; 2) a failure to apply the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 4) a retroactive revision to sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 7:54 am
Sys. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:00 am
Rather, it builds on Chancellor Chandler's analysis in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 2:31 pm
This Delaware Supreme Court ruling reversed a Chancery decision that found a lack of proper purpose in a suit by a shareholder seeking books and records pursuant to Section 220. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 6:36 pm
” Gonzalez v. [read post]
17 Jan 2010, 8:45 am
Recently, the Supreme Court clarified the concept of bad faith in Lyondell Chemical Co. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 9:40 am
Chandler, 324 N.C. 172 (1989) (same for testimony from a prior trial); State v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 7:20 am
In Zapata v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 1:58 am
The memo reviews the well-publicized difficulties associated with valuing these securities, and notes the probable lack of valuation uniformity among holders of these securities, given the flexibility of the relevant accounting standards. [read post]
19 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm
" The upshot of Chandler, Estes and the Richmond cases is that audiovisual coverage of court proceedings is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm
" The upshot of Chandler, Estes and the Richmond cases is that audiovisual coverage of court proceedings is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment. [read post]
