Search for: "FIRST ENERGY CORP." Results 981 - 1000 of 1,699
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2013, 2:07 pm by Steven M. Taber
And at Interior, they are expanding offshore wind energy program. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 11:35 am by Robert C. Weill
  In a controversial 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court in Washington National Insurance Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 7:07 am by Devlin Hartline
In an issue of first impression at the appellate court level, the Fourth Circuit last week held that a clickwrap agreement could satisfy Section 204(a)’s requirement that “[a] transfer of copyright ownership” be “in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed . . . . [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am by Abbott & Kindermann
 The court first held that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction did not apply here: “The question of whether [County] must follow the public trust doctrine to monitor groundwater extractions that are not subject to the 1980 adjudication is not a matter necessarily related to the 1980 decree. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:31 pm
Valero Energy Corp., Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil Corp., which runs a major refinery in Baytown, Texas, all stand to gain.... [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:31 pm
Valero Energy Corp., Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil Corp., which runs a major refinery in Baytown, Texas, all stand to gain....However, Texas refiners won't be able to take full advantage of the influx of U.S. oil, most of which is of the variety known as light sweet. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:31 pm
Valero Energy Corp., Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil Corp., which runs a major refinery in Baytown, Texas, all stand to gain.... [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
Coakley 12-1168Issue: (1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,… [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 6:28 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The court of appeals reversed, noting first that this was a reverse confusion case. [read post]
21 May 2013, 9:00 am by Allison Christians
The Court held that PPL Corp., a U.S. company that owned a large interest in a U.K. energy company, is allowed to credit against its U.S. income tax an amount paid as a “windfall tax” to the U.K. government in 1997. [read post]
14 Apr 2013, 2:38 pm by John W. Arden
Encana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) that the filed-rate doctrine did not bar antitrust claims that were essentially the same as those in the present case. [read post]