Search for: "PROPERTIES FOUR, INC. v. State"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,989
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2014, 11:01 am
The bulk of the costs are in four categories: hours worked by University information technology (IT) department workers in response to the breach; similar hours worked by State Colleges IT workers; the cost of investigative services provided by Fishnet Services, Inc., a third-party IT consultant hired by the University; and the cost of investigative services provided by Kroll Advisory Solutions, a third-party consultant hired by the State Colleges' insurance… [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 6:35 am
In Rowe v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
State of California (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1542. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 10:18 am
In the landmark decision of Calder v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 5:05 am
However, all of the data on the four computers were encrypted with `DriveCrypt Plus’ software.Commonwealth v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 12:53 pm
State v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 5:43 pm
Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act -- Settlement agreement -- Trial court was without jurisdiction to review and approve settlement agreement which was entered into more than four years after property owners had filed suit seeking compensation under Bert Harris Act -- Settlement agreement did not comply with presuit settlement timeline set forth in statute, and presuit settlement procedures were not available to parties at time they entered into… [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:55 am
SPRAWLDEF v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 8:36 am
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 8:09 am
See In re Lake States Commodities, Inc., 272 B.R. 233, 242 (Bankr. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
”); Doyle, The Sign of the Four, ch 6 (1890)(“‘You will not apply my precept’, he said, shaking his head. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 9:15 am
Firstplus Financial, Inc. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 8:58 pm
Graham v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:15 am
Over Google’s objections, in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:15 am
Over Google’s objections, in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 10:36 am
United States, 636 F. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 10:30 am
Nonetheless, the court concluded that the district court did not commit a reversible error where the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:48 pm
After a four-day bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found claim 8 of U.S. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:58 am
at 15 (quoting McCarthy v. [read post]
