Search for: "In re Davis"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 4,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2017, 3:34 am
House Passes Two Bipartisan Bills to Facilitate Offerings Here’s news from this Davis Polk memo: On November 1, the House passed two bills designed to encourage capital formation by extending JOBS Act testing-the-waters provisions to all companies, codifying the SEC’s earlier expansion of confidential submission of draft registration statements by a non-emerging growth company for its IPO and during the one-year period after going public, and modifying the definition of an… [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 4:15 am
To take stock of where we’ve been & where we’re going, here’s a rundown of what’s being said about Dodd-Frank on its anniversary: – SEC Chair White – House Financial Services Committee – Q & A with Dodd-Frank (WSJ) – WSJ – Bloomberg – Market Watch – The Hill – Fortune – Money Also check out Davis Polk’s “5th Anniversary Dodd-Frank Progress Report” and cool “Dodd-Frank… [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 2:33 am
In re Nick Bovis, Serial No. 77502609 (September 28, 2010) [not precedential].The Applicant and the Examining Attorney did not argue that the word "FOODS" was of any import on the at issue at hand, and the Board agreed. [read post]
MCCHRYSTAL FIRED, Petraeus asked to take over. Will MoveOn and Keith Olbermann reprise their “Gener…
23 Jun 2010, 11:28 am
They’re not exactly bastions of journalistic integrity-or did things suddenly invert over the last 10 years? [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 6:46 pm
The label "Romeo and Juliet" offenses has to be the most successful attempt to re-brand a sex crime as something that shouldn't worry the public. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 8:29 am
If payments go up anymore, I don't think we're financially able to keep the house. [read post]
12 May 2021, 8:08 am
It definitely feels like we’re seeing more stories about “law clerk conflicts allegations. [read post]
12 May 2010, 8:28 pm
You’re a criminal defense lawyer, and have no business with accountants as a general rule. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 5:23 pm
If you’re looking for such a position, hopefully this will give you a head start. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 10:24 am
From: Joseph Burgess To: velvel@mslaw.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:55 PMSubject: Re: With Its Defeat By Appalachian State, Michigan Finally Realizes Its Many, Many Decades Old Desire To Be The Harvard Of The West.Congratulations are due to Michigan for its achieving the long-held dream that you so well pointed out with your comparison of its loss in football to Appalachian State to Harvard's 1921 loss to Centre College. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 3:13 am
“No, you’re a stupid head! [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 8:45 am
Nash Davis is an Associate in the Real Estate and Financial Services Practice Group of BoltNagi PC, a U.S. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 9:00 am
Nash Davis is an Associate in the Real Estate and Financial Services Practice Group of BoltNagi PC, a U.S. [read post]
1 May 2010, 9:58 am
Wendy Davis' writeup of this ruling. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 10:35 am
He says "a couple" of other counties have since reported they're missing chips as well, but he didn't know which counties or how many chips they're missing. [read post]
1 May 2024, 9:01 pm
We’re talking about students studying in libraries. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 4:23 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
2 Jan 2020, 9:01 pm
But even with that uncertainty, there have been suggestions that, should the current Senate decide not to convict President Trump, if he were re-elected in 2020 he would be subject to (re)impeachment and (re)trial by a new Senate, because the double jeopardy protections that prevent retrial of criminal defendants do not apply to impeachment. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 9:25 am
" Davis won re-election in 2002 through a deeply cynical maneuver: He should have faced Richard Riordan, a very popular Republican mayor of Los Angeles. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 9:01 pm
As a starting point, consider the following plainspoken language from the California Supreme Court in In re: Kay: [The government] retains a legitimate concern in ensuring that some individuals’ unruly assertion of their rights of free expression does not imperil other citizens’ rights of free association and discussion. [read post]
