Search for: "State v. C. S."
Results 1521 - 1540
of 37,706
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Oct 2023, 11:10 am
Jones v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 9:25 am
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has explained the relationship between the two subsections as follows: The more that a claimed cost satisfies the business necessity requirement in subsection (c), the more the contractor’s burden to satisfy the benefit requirement in subsection (b) is reduced. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 8:00 am
Protocol I, article 50(3); ICTY Prosecutor v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am
The PCT application names the three inventors as inventors and as applicants for the United States of America (US) only. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 6:07 pm
Finally, the court stated that Petitioner’s argument that ORES violated the express terms of Executive Law § 94-c is completely without merit. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 1:50 pm
Sackett v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 9:29 am
At the hearing, the parties argued the import of the recent decision of State of Missouri v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
V. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 3:40 pm
Aug. 14, 2023). [7] See Mobil Oil Corp. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 11:20 am
[v] There is a specific formula for calculating available income. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 8:09 am
Finesse Wireless LLC v. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 6:32 am
On August 25, 2023, two SEC compliance and disclosure interpretations (“C&DI”) were issued related to these quarterly disclosures.[1] C&DI 133A.01 states that Item 408(a)(1) of Regulation S-K does not require disclosure of termination of a plan that ends due to expiration or completion of the plan in accordance with its terms, without any action by an individual. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 6:32 am
On August 25, 2023, two SEC compliance and disclosure interpretations (“C&DI”) were issued related to these quarterly disclosures.[1] C&DI 133A.01 states that Item 408(a)(1) of Regulation S-K does not require disclosure of termination of a plan that ends due to expiration or completion of the plan in accordance with its terms, without any action by an individual. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
From SSRN:Lucy C. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 1:52 am
The Court of Appeal had struck out parts of the claim in December on the grounds of the former King’s state immunity. [read post]
8 Oct 2023, 9:39 pm
” Etc.In the 1969 case of Powell v. [read post]
8 Oct 2023, 1:01 am
Fuller’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 2:46 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 11:54 am
[Amicus brief in Supreme Court's Second Amendment Rahimi case] This week amicus briefs were filed in United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 5:12 am
Areas Pension Fund v. [read post]
