Search for: "A-1 Disposal Service, Inc." Results 121 - 140 of 736
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Likewise, in Pier 1 Imports, Inc., which is pending in the Bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Virginia, shelter-in-place orders have necessitated temporary store closures, thwarting Pier 1’s plans to sell the business as a going-concern. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 10:27 am by Rob Robinson
Ad-hoc use of apps or services by individuals should not be encouraged. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 1:32 pm by Noble McIntyre
McIntyre Law believes this to be a vital service to the public. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 4:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
A release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of'” (Wechsler v Diamond Sugar Co., Inc., 29 AD3d 681, 682, quoting Lefrak SBN Assoc. v Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256, 257; see Demaria v Brenhouse, 277 AD2d 344). [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 3:00 am by Megan Engel
  The case involves questions regarding how to interpret and apply the FCA’s materiality standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 5:30 am by Alan Z. Rozenshtein
Section 230 was enacted as a response to Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 5:02 am by Eugene Volokh
Liebowitz has filed since 2016, over 500 of those have been voluntarily dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of before any merits-based litigation. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 9:23 am by Kristian Soltes
Objectors Had No Role In $6B Swipe Fee Deal, Court ToldLaw360 – August 1, 2019 (subscription required) Merchants who secured a multibillion-dollar swipe fee settlement with Visa Inc., Mastercard Inc. and a group of banks urged a New York federal judge Wednesday not to grant legal fees to objectors to the original deal, arguing that the objectors played no part in increasing the payment amount. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 1:04 pm by Eric Goldman
Accepting plaintiffs’ argument would eviscerate Section 230(c)(1); a defendant interactive computer service would be ineligible for Section 230(c)(1) immunity by virtue of simply organizing and displaying content exclusively provided by third parties. [read post]