Search for: "Commitment of J F"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 1,900
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2015, 9:18 am
§ 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 9:33 pm
Politics, Taxes, and the Pulpit: Provocative First Amendment Conflicts Nina J. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 6:30 am
Gerber and Ryan J. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 11:46 am
Rader, J. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 2:00 pm
“This prosecution put dishonest operators and anybody thinking about committing fraud on notice,” Rackauckas said at a news conference. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 10:17 am
J. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 12:55 pm
Webster, J. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 8:43 pm
J., dissenting). [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 2:00 am
“A majority of the Board is committed to engage in rulemaking, and the NLRB will do so. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 6:30 am
Gerber and Ryan J. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 2:00 am
“A majority of the Board is committed to engage in rulemaking, and the NLRB will do so. [read post]
22 Oct 2023, 9:24 am
That is necessary pursuant to Article 3 (1) (j). [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm
J. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 1:28 pm
Blogger Obiter J writes for Law and Lawyers about a potential legal challenge to this policy and analyses the possible legal aspects of such challenge. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
§ 413(1)(f)(10). [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 9:24 am
Newly created Section 2699(j) provides PAGA penalties cannot be awarded against an employer who undertakes timely remediation for those violations that the employer “cures” after receiving an LWDA notice. [read post]
17 Apr 2010, 5:24 am
Co., 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir.1983). [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 12:42 pm
” As media outlets reported at the time, the seizure was the third major step “taken [in recent months] in connection with an escalating federal investigation into efforts by several close allies of former President Donald J. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 12:24 am
On 16 February 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] UKSC 5. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 6:53 pm
In 1989, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit resolved an appeal involving expert witnesses who relied upon epidemiologic studies by concluding that it did not have to resolve questions of bias and confounding because the studies relied upon had presented their results with confidence intervals.[4] Judges and expert witnesses persistently interpreted single confidence intervals from one study as having a 95 percent probability of containing the actual parameter.[5]… [read post]
