Search for: "State v. Allen" Results 1561 - 1580 of 2,727
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Feb 2017, 3:41 am
Teva v Gilead, Abraxis v Comptroller and Wobben v Siemens kick of 2017's patent casesGuest post from Steven Baldwin (Allen & Overy), summarizing 2017's recent patent decisions. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 6:03 am by Nietzer
” Under the UK Bribery Act, policies are discussed in the Six Principles of an Adequate Procedures compliance program under Principle V – Communication, where it states “The business seeks to ensure that its bribery prevention policies and procedures are embedded and understood throughout the company through internal and external communication, including training, that is proportionate to the risks it faces. [read post]
3 Mar 2025, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Fradella, How State Courts Apply Lawrence v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 3:35 am by Peter Mahler
[Footnotes omitted] In the omitted footnotes, the opinion cites the above-mentioned Nixon v Blackwell and Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Nemec v Schrader in which it rejected a claim that directors of Booz Allen breached fiduciary duty by exercising redemption rights under an officers stock plan to redeem the shares of retired officers at a lower price in anticipation of a lucrative merger with the Carlyle Group. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 7:34 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
… [58] As Justice Allen noted in Liu v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm by NL
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm by NL
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 10:17 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
KokeshCase Number: 09-cv-01021 (United States District Court for the District of New Mexico)Case Filed: October 27, 2009Qualifying Judgment/Order: March 30, 2015 4/30/15 7/29/15 2015-39 SEC v. [read post]
15 May 2015, 1:37 pm by Mary Jane Wilmoth
KokeshCase Number: 09-cv-01021 (United States District Court for the District of New Mexico)Case Filed: October 27, 2009Qualifying Judgment/Order: March 30, 2015 4/30/15 7/29/15 2015-39 SEC v. [read post]