Search for: "Matter of G. C. ,"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 4,011
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2020, 5:47 pm
On January 25, 1990, the court, the Honorable Peter C. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 2:40 pm
Koleske, Editor, 1995, pages 23-25D6: BYK Additives & Instruments, Product Guide L-G 1, Paint Additives, February 2009D7: WO 2011/084380 A1.V. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 7:19 am
Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Cuyahoga County, for Appellant State of Ohio Cullen G. [read post]
12 Jan 2020, 4:00 am
Justice Côté is dissenting. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am
Family Court Act 1089 (d) 2 (vii) was amended by adding a new clause (H) and Social Services Law §358-a, subd. 3 was amended by adding a new paragraph (g).Laws of 2019, Ch 716, enacted and effective December 20, 2019, amended Domestic Relations Law and the Civil Rights Law. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 12:03 pm
C. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 4:34 am
Holdings LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 30013(U) January 2, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651794/2015 Judge Jennifer G. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 11:43 am
The proposal would add new categories of accredited investors for (i) “family offices” as defined in Rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (a) with at least $5 million in assets under management, (b) that are not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered and (c) whose investment is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such family office is capable of… [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 11:43 am
The proposal would add new categories of accredited investors for (i) “family offices” as defined in Rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (a) with at least $5 million in assets under management, (b) that are not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered and (c) whose investment is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such family office is capable of… [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 1:58 am
Therefore, the decision could not stand, and the matters were reconsidered.Consent and second-hand salesBoth parties agreed that there was no express consent but the Applicant argued that there was implied consent (relimg on The Sunrider Corp v OHIM EU Case T-203/02 as establishing that implied consent would qualify). [read post]
5 Jan 2020, 2:52 pm
The liability environment for directors and officers is always in a state of change, but 2019 was a particularly eventful year in the D&O liability arena, with important consequences for the D&O insurance marketplace. [read post]
5 Jan 2020, 2:52 pm
The liability environment for directors and officers is always in a state of change, but 2019 was a particularly eventful year in the D&O liability arena, with important consequences for the D&O insurance marketplace. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 1:27 pm
At the close of the evidence, however, the district court granted defendantsʹ motion for judgment as a matter of law. [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 4:40 am
G. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm
See, e.g., Report at 13 n.22; C-SPAN at 2:10:50. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 4:12 pm
The Court found this ‘unacceptable’, and stressed ‘all legal matters must be resolved exclusively by the courts’. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm
Decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06 were made in the context of divisional applications. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
(c) Complexity and Cost TekSavvy has submitted that “to implement and maintain a system of site-blocking could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and could involve significant strain on TekSavvy’s human resources”. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 3:35 am
Based on the 92-page decision by District of Columbia Judge Emmett G. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 8:58 am
This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that may be of interest to state criminal practitioners from November, 2019. (1) Motion in limine to prohibit the use of the word “robbery” by government witnesses properly denied; (2) No error to deny mistrial following witness’s emotional outburst; (3) Pretrial publicity did not rise to the level of creating a presumption of prejudice and defendant failed to show actual prejudice; (4) Failure to… [read post]
