Search for: "D. Moore"
Results 1221 - 1240
of 2,424
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Dec 2018, 7:38 am
The Adriatic Sea, viewed from the city walls of Dubrovnik In a few days, I will be publishing my annual Top Ten D&O Stories list for 2018. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 7:58 am
A recent federal Tax Court case, Moore v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 10:44 pm
I'd say — oddly. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 4:00 am
For a general discussion see Lisa Moore, Crossing Boundaries: Exploring Multi-Disciplinary Models for L [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:28 am
I’d rather have someone other than the unnamed “locals” that NSR cites to set me straight. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 10:40 am
(The prosecutor was Tom D’Amore.) [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 6:00 am
Within the next twenty minutes, both Dana Moore and Pamela Hobbs reported that their sons, Michael Moore and Steve Branch, were also missing. [read post]
3 May 2013, 2:36 pm
Randy Hultgren (R-IL), James Himes D-CT), Richard Hudson (R-NC) and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), would repeal most of Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 4:16 am
In the death penalty case, Moore v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 10:45 am
The only upside to that scenario is that you’d get to share your jail cell with someone you know. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 7:34 am
"They'd been our neighbors for a long time. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 10:05 am
”“When they did finally get round to it Mr Moore forwarded the correspondence to me. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 11:18 pm
Meanwhile, Solomon Moore at the New York Times today published an article ("Troubles mount within Texas youth detention facilities," Oct. 16) on TYC's continuing tale of woe, even mentioning Grits in the piece. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 12:48 pm
Moore, 833 So.2d 693, 712-713 (Fla. 2002). [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 4:41 am
” At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports on Tuesday’s decision in Moore v. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:49 pm
That'd be valid fare payment if Walker was indeed Aalim Moor. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 3:49 am
In LaShawn A. by Moore v. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 3:53 am
It also ruled against Novartis on the grounds of violating section 3(d)--a ruling that may have been a sound one, but for the small quirk that it was also held, in the same breath, that the drug was "inventive".Naturally, Novartis appealed, hoping that the Supreme Court would, at the very least, rescue Indian patent jurisprudence from the hands of a flighty IPAB and secure it in more legally tenable moorings. [read post]
