Search for: "Burns Holdings, Inc." Results 161 - 180 of 561
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2017, 3:15 am by Barry Sookman
Canada’s Supreme Court orders Google to de-index unlawful websites globally https://t.co/sgFzLv3CUj -> National Courts and the Future of the Internet: Google Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 12:01 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The recently filed securities suit involves Arconic, Inc. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 10:02 pm by Barry Barnett
ANZ Securities, Inc., No. 16-373 (U.S. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 7:07 am by Phyllis H. Marcus and Andrew W. Eklund
On December 12, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced a summary decision against California Naturel, Inc., holding that advertising sunscreen as “all natural” violates Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act because 8 percent of the product is comprised of the synthetic ingredient dimethicone. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 2:47 pm by Michael Grossman
In mid-August, McDonald’s Inc. announced a recall of its Step-It Fitness Tracker Happy Meal toys. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 1:00 pm by Dan Ernst
C.Grace Guggenheim has been a producer and executive producer of historical documentaries with Guggenheim Productions, Inc. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 10:36 am by Samantha Beltre (US)
Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., appears to have extended the reach of the “cat’s paw” doctrine, holding that the doctrine could be applied to hold an employer liable for an adverse employment decision that was influenced by the discriminatory or retaliatory animus of a low-level, non-supervisory co-worker. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 12:21 pm by Sharifi Firm, PLC
Connie Rogers was the plaintiff in a slip and fall case involving PMB, a Limited Liability Company and property manager, and Topline Supply, Inc. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 6:09 am
Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights,Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (`Instead, we have extended First Amendment protection only to conduct that is inherently expressive[, such as flag burning]' (citing Texas v. [read post]
26 May 2016, 10:57 am
It's surprising that Mourinho doesn't own the 'Jose Mourinho' mark himself - that would give him an option to licence the rights to his employers (which, for a successful manager, change rather frequently...)Whatever it is that is holding up that deal here (it's not exactly clear), best of luck to the IP lawyers burning the midnight oil to hasten The Special One's arrival at the Theatre of Dreams. [read post]