Search for: "The People v. David C." Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,319
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2007, 7:02 am
In fact, 65% of the people UCP affiliates serve have a disability other than cerebral palsy. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 8:10 am
The Court stated that "it is clear… that the SEC understand[s] the company to be those who act for the company … And that is a small, relatively small group of people, like the board of directors, who have management discretion to run the business and affairs of the company. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 9:00 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (C) gives a thumbs up as Donald Trump Jr. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 6:55 am by Adam Chandler
”  Kerr analyzes the reply brief in one such case—City of Ontario v. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 1:10 am
Gene Green and David PriceLetter Titled, "Support Vision Loss Prevention and Research Programs"02/25/2008 Fact Sheet: The Quiet Revolution: A Seven-Year Progress Report (PDF 42.6 KB)By the White House Press Secretary02/25/2008 GAO Report to Congressional Requesters (PDF 565 KB)Hedge Funds: Regulators and Market Participants Are Taking Steps to Strengthen Market Discipline, but Continued Attention Is Needed02/25/2008 GAO Report to Sens. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 9:36 pm
 PatLit hosts the maiden post from its new blog team member David C. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 2:26 pm by Lyle Denniston
” Aereo’s lawyer, Washington attorney David C. [read post]
8 May 2015, 10:41 am by Kirk Jenkins
The Court pointed out that it had long ago rejected the proposition that there was an unstated police power exception to the Pension Clause in Felt v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 7:23 am
Remember, this is the person that will be replacing David Souter. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 3:12 am by New Books Script
K 3240 F67 2012 Human rights in international relations / David P. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  If process claims are available, and relevant to consumers, in many more contexts than previously realized, among other things that has implications for the First Amendment treatment of advertising regulation—compare the claims made in the Nike v. [read post]