Search for: "DB v. State"
Results 161 - 180
of 194
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2012, 5:30 am
Other interesting cases include Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd (Plaintiff) v. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 10:17 am
(now Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. [read post]
16 Dec 2007, 3:14 pm
Box 16520 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (877) 543-7669 (Toll Free) Web: http://www.utahchip.org Hearing Impairments Programs for Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Utah Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Utah State Office of Rehabilitation 5709 South 1500 West Salt Lake City, UT 84123 Phone: (801) 263-4860 (V/TTY); (800) 860-4860 (V/TTY/Toll Free in UT only) Web: http://www.usor.state.ut.us/dsdhh/dsdhh.html State Agency for Individuals… [read post]
23 Nov 2023, 1:42 am
Union Of India (Novartis DB), Manu/TN/1263/2007 and Supreme Court decision in Novartis AG[2]Novartis AG v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am
State limits choices of individuals to protect them from consequences of their own decisions. [read post]
8 Jul 2018, 4:19 pm
The Panopticon Blog has analysed the case of DB v GMC [2018] EWCA Civ 1497, a case which illustrates best practice in managing mixed personal data. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:10 am
Khajuria v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:56 am
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for = the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters = addressed herein. =20… [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:48 am
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for = the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters = addressed herein. =20… [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 11:10 am
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for = the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters = addressed herein. =20… [read post]
10 May 2010, 2:59 am
In addition, the authority of local and state regulatory agencies will be usurped by the U.S. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 9:14 am
Davi, LLC, 2:21-CV-00273-MCE-DB, 2022 WL 256867, at *5 (E.D. [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 4:32 pm
InFacts v Daily Express. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 9:47 am
E185.96.A730 1993 Regenstein Baldwin, Lewis V. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 4:18 pm
This generalization is true not just for companies in the United States but for all companies around the world. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 6:58 am
(Easterling v. [read post]
10 May 2018, 9:49 am
White v. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 4:40 pm
************************************ On June 11, 2015, New York’s Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in ACE Securities Corp. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 5:37 am
" Sullivan v. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 2:23 pm
Sponsoring employers and administrators of cafeteria plans now have additional guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about when same-sex couples can be treated as spouses for purposes of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 125’s rules on cafeteria plans, including health and dependent care flexible spending arrangements (FSAs), and Code Section 223’s rules about health savings accounts (HSAs) following the Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the Defense of… [read post]
