Search for: "MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. US " Results 121 - 140 of 200
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Nov 2018, 9:25 am by Anushka Limaye
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 9:00 pm
We have also included a list of other hotel options nearby. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 3:52 pm
  Whereas the balance of the EPA employs the term “natural environment” as a reference simply to the air, land and water, or any combination thereof in Ontario, Part V.0.1 adopts the more expansive definition used in the Environmental Assessment Act. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 5:31 am by Liron Libman
The U.N. secretary-general relied—as the depositary of the Rome Statute and according to existing practice (Chapter V)—on determinations made by the U.N. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 11:58 am by Anushka Limaye
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 10:52 pm by Sophia Tang
Given the power of Big Tech Companies, their enormous financial resources, cross-jurisdictional reach and their global impact on users’ privacy, there are two main litigation challenges for successfully bringing a privacy claim against Big Tech. [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 10:46 am by Todd Carney, Patrick McDonnell
§ 706 (APA) because it was “arbitrary and capricious” since it did not take into account the devastating impact the policy would have on the health and safety of all members of the schools’ communities. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 9:53 am
Thus, Eckerd could have been in total compliance with all contractual provisions even if every released client committed a new offense on the first day in the community. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 4:43 pm by Rudolf J. Karvay
Income tax deductions: Donors can receive an income tax deduction for the present value of their future gift when using a charitable remainder trust or a charitable lead trust. 3. [read post]
” For that reason, the court found that the testimony provided by the community was focused on concerns about the existing hazards affecting their community and not on any potential impacts caused by or exacerbated by the project. [read post]