Search for: "S&H Marketing Inc." Results 1341 - 1360 of 1,387
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Aug 2007, 2:40 am
Title616 A9244 Heastie -- Relates to the termination of a residential lease by a victim of domestic violence 615 A9206 Barclay -- Authorizes the town of Camillus to change the retirement plan that it offers to police officers and firefighters 614 A9145 Schimminger -- Extends the provisions relating to the registration of kegs 613 A9002A Sweeney (MS) -- Creates the New York state sea level rise task force 612 … [read post]
10 Aug 2007, 2:51 am
"We believe that there's a strong market for a small boutique firm that can provide personalized services," Avila said. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 2:55 pm
The former SEC members' brief is opposed by the parties sued in the case -- Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 1:11 am
ALM Privacy Policy / Contact Us © 2007 ALM Properties, Inc. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 11:06 pm
The plaintiff, Nancy Parker, appeals the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) to the defendant, General Extrusions, Inc., on the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in relation to her Title VII gender discrimination suit, which she brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 8:23 am
H. 11,095 (Sept. 28, 1978); S 17,412 (Oct. 6, 1978); In re Tri-O-Clean, Inc., 230 B.R. 192 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1998).The plaintiff bears the burden of presenting material evidence of unfair conduct. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 8:34 pm
Of course, the H.264 business probably would not have been mentioned. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 4:32 pm
Rugaber reports here; and Mark H. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 8:03 am
The Court was unanimous, with Justice David H. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 1:00 am
ALM Privacy Policy / Contact Us © 2007 ALM Properties, Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 6:13 am
That did not take into account the H.264 mess and the Broadcom litigations. [read post]
24 May 2007, 12:49 pm
Medtronic, Inc., the government contends first that cert. is not warranted because the Second Circuit's decision was correct: the FDA's premarket approval of a medical device such as the one at issue here creates federal "requirements" that preempt state-law tort claims which rest on the manufacturer's failure to satisfy state-law requirements. [read post]