Search for: "Figures v. Figures" Results 21 - 40 of 13,969
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jan 2025, 9:07 am by Kevin LaCroix
I think the agencies have got to figure out what is the highest and best use for them, and let Congress and others figure out what the public policy should be. [read post]
6 Jan 2025, 5:46 am by Marcel Pemsel
They found that both marks were composed of the same number of black horizontal stripes on a white background and presented a V shape. [read post]
6 Jan 2025, 4:02 am by Charles Sartain
 In the latest interation of United States and Osage Minerals Council v. [read post]
3 Jan 2025, 1:20 pm
Something that the City, which is staffed by a legion of reasonable people, would know as well.Is is possible that Grimm saw the tickets, read them, put them back, and simply figured "Ah, heck, I'm sure this will turn out just fine for me? [read post]
3 Jan 2025, 12:35 pm by John Ross
Eleventh Circuit: Which isn't sex discrimination given the non-sex-based reasons for the difference: He had more relevant experience (13 years v. 2 years) and more education (a PhD v. a master's degree). [read post]
30 Dec 2024, 11:52 am
" Indeed, "few doubt the increasingly competent signature of its security services", which is thought to have targeted dozens of figures considered enemies by the Ukrainian state, said The Economist. [read post]
30 Dec 2024, 4:27 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Such was the painful outcome of Talking Capital Windup LLC v Omanoff (___ AD3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 06283 [1st Dept Dec. 12, 2024]). [read post]
30 Dec 2024, 2:30 am by Mark I. Schickman, Schickman Law
Even if an individual employee complies with the dress code, can she be asked to change clothes because she is too distractingly curvaceous? [read post]
30 Dec 2024, 2:30 am by Mark I. Schickman, Schickman Law
Even if an individual employee complies with the dress code, can she be asked to change clothes because she is too distractingly curvaceous? [read post]
29 Dec 2024, 4:34 pm by INFORRM
  In Sir James Dyson v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3092 (KB), Jay J declined to draw an such an inference of serious harm where the contested publication was in a national newspaper. [read post]
28 Dec 2024, 10:03 pm by Josh Blackman
Recall that the eight-member Court punted this issue to let the next administration figure things out. [read post]