Search for: "Does, A-H" Results 1281 - 1300 of 16,614
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2023, 3:37 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
This does not mean, however, that students should be able to dictate the curriculum. [read post]
7 Feb 2023, 12:00 pm by Bernard Bell
May an agency revive a defunct rulemaking without notice, and then immediately promulgate a lightly revised version of the proposed rule as a final rule? [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Background Under Delaware corporate law, directors owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the corporation that they serve.[2] Since the Caremark case, these duties have included an obligation for directors to exercise oversight by making a good faith effort to implement and monitor reasonable information and reporting systems and controls.[3] A director who (i) utterly fails to implement any reporting or information system or controls (a “prong 1” failure); or (ii) having… [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 1:37 pm by Guest Author
It is noteworthy that the PRA does not provide any cause of action against the agency on the ground that the agency made errors on its estimate.[11] The most that can happen is that if the OMB does not approve it, the agency is unable to enforce the regulation.[12] What types of costs, then, would not be included in the SEC’s paperwork burden estimate? [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 6:36 pm by admin
Errant Opinions on Differential Etiology The third edition’s treatment of differential etiology does leave room for improvement. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 9:49 am by Greg Reed
It does not address veteran’s disability benefits or federal employee disability benefits. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 9:31 am by Greg Reed
Sometimes the claimant does not or cannot give either timely notice or timely proof of loss or both. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 7:39 am by admin
The authors of an epidemiologic study have no one person in mind, as does the factfinder in a civil action. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 2:46 am by Guest Author
  As I have argued, to the degree this speech is simply YouTube’s own words, Section 230 does not apply. [read post]