Search for: "Communication Partners, Inc." Results 1441 - 1460 of 3,025
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
In many firms, a generation gap exists between the firm’s partners and its associates. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 9:52 am by Kimberly Carlson
Sandra Smeltzer, Associate Professor, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario Sarah Spinks, Secretary-Treasurer, Spin Free Productions Inc. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 8:54 am by WIMS
(c)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 5:00 am by Peter Berlin
He has been fined $20,000 and ordered to perform 360 hours of community service. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 8:59 am by WIMS
(c)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 11:37 am by Beth Van Schaack
Alcolac, Inc., for example, plaintiffs sought to sue the company for providing a [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 1:07 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Sheakley Group, Inc., 2015 WL 1321126, No. 1:13cv246 (S.D. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 7:36 am by Rebecca Tushnet
LivingSocial, Inc., 2015 WL 1198654, No. 14cv00418 (S.D. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 4:10 pm
 This makes today a particularly happy one for the multinational soft-drink megacorp, since this morning one of its privately-owned subsidiaries, Energy Brands, Inc., also had spot of success before the same court when an appeal against its successful revocation proceedings against a SMART WATER Community trade mark (CTM) was dismissed [on which see earlier Katpost here. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 8:51 am by WIMS
In February, around 100 Coalition members and partners met with lawmakers in WashingtonD.C. to advocate for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other Coalition priorities. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 9:07 am by WIMS
   (c)Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 4:00 am by Ian Mackenzie
This was the case in a recent Ontario case, PowerServe Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 10:13 am
The company’s lawyer was copied on that e-mail.The test for solicitor-client privilege includes establishing whether first, there is a communication, and second, whether that communication was intended to be confidential, requirements that are often fairly easy to establish, according to McCarthy Tétrault LLP partner Malcolm Mercer. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:01 am by Eric Goldman
§ 230(e)(4) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 . . . or any similar State law. [read post]