Search for: "International Materials, Inc." Results 1681 - 1700 of 7,053
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jul 2018, 4:09 am by Cheryl Beise
The defendant was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under the Lanham Act because there was no court action that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 11:50 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis,… [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 11:14 am by Mike Delikat
” Uniform Definition of “Whistleblower” In the wake of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 2:53 pm by Larry
Court of International Trade in Danze, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 10:12 am by Marcie Mangan
GLOBAL EXPERIENCE SPECIALISTS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and FREDERIC NEIRINCKX, Individually, Defendants. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 9:13 am by Kevin Kaufman
And over time, increased trade has made the United States more productive and has contributed to large increases in Americans’ standard of living.[6] Since the end of World War II, growth in annual real global trade has outpaced GDP growth, growing on average 1.5 times faster.[7] Much of this increase in trade can be explained by reductions in barriers to international exchange, such as tariffs and quotas.[8] Post-war trade liberalization has led to widespread benefits, including… [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 8:51 am by MOTP
No longer an open question: Whether there is a cause of action for tortious interference with an inheritance in Texas. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 4:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
With respect to the City, the court held that it had made a prima facie showing that the subject “low entry sanitation vehicle was a product of a discretionary decision making process and that the product was reasonably safe for its intended use” (id. at 4) and that plaintiff had failed to raise a material question of fact in opposition (id. at 5). [read post]