Search for: "STATE v. ADEPT" Results 81 - 100 of 165
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Dec 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
In 1876, lawyer and legal publisher Carl Jahn published the first issue of the Weekly Cincinnati Law Bulletin, a precursor of the Ohio State Bar Journal, and solicited Ohio lawyers to submit “law points of general interest. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:03 am by INFORRM
Presenters often appear to be ill-briefed and insufficiently armed with the facts necessary to challenge assertions made by interviewees in live interviews, reflecting not just pressure on them but a lack of understanding by programme researchers and producers He also pointed to ‘evidence of a misunderstanding of the political process in the EU’, drawing attention in particular to written evidence submitted by the Labour Party which stated that ‘too often it seems that… [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 9:30 am by azatty
Yes, DOL enforcement must be vigorous, and collaborations with state departments of labor must be robust. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 3:52 pm by familoo
And so then I began to wonder why there couldn’t be routine recording of social work meetings and interviews of adults – not by parents but by the state? [read post]
12 Jul 2014, 12:27 pm
 I was perfectly content with my life until Jeremy suggested that I blog about the United States Patent and Trademark Office (TTAB) Harry Winston v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 7:46 am by Stephen D. Rosenberg
I was thinking of this because Mitchell Shames, who is now an independent fiduciary at Harrison Fiduciary and before that was the long time general counsel for State Street Global Advisors (including during the time that the First Circuit blessed their structure for handling exactly these types of conflicts, in Bunch v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 6:35 am
Central planning, not the welfare state, is what was incompatible with individual liberty. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 10:40 pm by Shamnad Basheer
Speaking of India’s contentious compulsory licensing order in Natco v. [read post]