Search for: "Government Employees Insurance Company v. Poole"
Results 81 - 100
of 103
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Oct 2011, 6:42 pm
GRIMSLEY, Appellant, v. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 7:23 am
-Gary V. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 9:48 am
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) sweeping preemptive force is cabined by a savings statute that allows the business of insurance to escape federal employee benefit plan regulation. [read post]
31 May 2011, 7:30 am
Thus Simpson may have enjoyed insurance coverage under the Virginia Municipal Liability Pool, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and/or National Grange Mutual Insurance policies implicated if he simply had testified at the declaratory judgment hearing that he had left his cruiser, siren and lights on to avoid potential car accident by alerting oncoming motorists while taking the criminal into custody. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 7:08 pm
In Katzenbach v. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 7:17 am
Think of what the state bars could do if they pooled their resources. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:01 am
State law often has several statutes,, each governing a different aspect of the problem. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 12:39 am
(Docket Report) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Paice LLC: Low patent count portfolio strategy succeeds against Toyota: Toyota and Paice settle – ITC terminates investigation (IP finance) (Tangible IP) (ITC Law Blog) (ITC 337 Update) (ITC 337 Update) Princo – CAFC has now heard en banc arguments in Princo v ITC concerning patent pools and standards (ITC Law Blog) US Copyright – Decisions Don Johnson scores a win against production company… [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 11:07 am
The Aurora employee sent a letter following up on theconversation. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:46 pm
HIDALGO Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 10:47 pm
– Charlotte Observer, March 8, 2010 Norfolk Southern Railway Co. has agreed to pay a $4 million penalty for a 2005 chlorine and diesel fuel spill that killed nine people and polluted a creek in western South Carolina, the federal government said Monday. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 9:15 pm
. **** Short Definition An Eligible Contract Participant generally means: Financial Institutions Insurance Companies Mutual Funds Certain commodity pools with $5 million or more of assets Certain organizations with, generally, $10 million or more of assets ERISA plans with $5 million or more of assets Certain governmental entities Certain broker-dealers and investment banks FCMs Floor brokers An individual with generally $10 million or more of assets Certain brokers… [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 11:38 am
The company's importance as a source of credit for households, businesses, and state and local governments must also be considered, as well as its source of liquidity for the financial system. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 4:45 pm
Maybe we can have some kind of insurance p [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
In September 2008, the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America and an $85 billion (and now $170 billion) government investment in American International Group. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 5:00 am
(Spicy IP) Copyright in characters – III – Delhi High Court decision in Raja Pocket Books v Radha Pocket Books (Spicy IP) Kenya Anti-Counterfeit Bill 2008 passed (Afro-IP) Kenya’s new anti-counterfeit legislation discussion (Afro-IP) Kuwait Kuwait adopts international classes 42-45 (Kuwaitmark) Macedonia New Industrial Property Law (Class 46) Nigeria Court moves from Uyo to continue proceedings in New York in… [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 9:40 am
V. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 3:14 pm
"In a 2005 case, City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Simpson, No. 07-5840 A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information. [read post]
