Search for: "STEELE v. STATE" Results 1361 - 1380 of 2,301
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2012, 2:54 am
T 0568/10 A patent in the name of Nippon Steel Corporation was opposed by Tata Steel. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 3:28 am
[In the following post, our guest contributor Rahul Singh analyzes the impact of CCI’s order in Builders Association of India v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 7:32 am by Lawrence Solum
 Between 1937 when the Court decided Jones and Laughlin Steel, and 1995, when the Court struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act in United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 6:33 pm by FDABlog HPM
  Manufacturers and distributors must secure schedule II substances in a safe, steel cabinet or vault while schedule III-V substances may be stored in a less secure controlled substance cage or other enclosure. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 1:48 pm by WIMS
Circuit in the case of Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 9:39 am by Legal Beagle
Mr Samond went on, unable to resist adding to his lengthy statement : “I remain grateful to Dame Elish and to the Rt Hon Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC - as well as their predecessors, Lord Steel and the Rt Hon George Reid - for their diligence and thoroughness in carrying out reviews such as this. [read post]
30 May 2012, 3:00 am by Steve Lombardi
Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 331 (Iowa 2002) (stating injury “must be related to the working environment or the conditions of employment”); Griffith v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 10:33 am by Joost Pauwelyn
  Streamlining Tuna with Cloves, in both cases we now have:  (1) a finding of discrimination (cloves v. menthols in Cloves; stricter labeling requirements in the ETP v. outside the ETP in Tuna) and  (2) a finding that the ban on cloves / strict labeling requirements in the ETP are not more trade restrictive than necessary. [read post]
21 May 2012, 8:00 am
 The Tenth District also issued an opinion in Columbus Steel Castings Co. v. [read post]
20 May 2012, 5:23 pm
This post will discuss a case in which hourly steel makers in Gary, IN allege that United States Steel Corporation is unlawfully refusing to pay them for the time spent putting on and taking off their clothes ("clothes changing time") and time spent walking from the locker room to their work stations and back ("travel time") The collective bargaining agreement between U.S. [read post]
16 May 2012, 7:54 pm by Epstein Becker & Green
This decision comes less than a month after a federal appeals court struck down the Board's notice-posting rule that would have required employers to advise employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, and less than two years after the Supreme Court of the United States in New Process Steel LP v. [read post]