Search for: "Jones v. The City of Manning et al" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Zeneca (07-822) and the Paxil and Zoloft case was Colacicco, et al., v. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 10:11 am
City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1062 (6th Cir. 1998), we affirm. 07a0438p.06 Smith, et al. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
The case was Irving N., et al., v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
The case was Irving N., et al., v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm by Christa Culver
(forthcoming)Amicus brief of the American Civil Rights UnionAmicus brief of the National Association of Home Builders et al. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 8:19 am
Customers included Man Group Plc (EMG), the world’s biggest hedge fund; Tudor Investment Corp., Tudor Jones’s hedge fund; and Saudi Arabian financial-services firm Saad Group, according to the people familiar with the matter. [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 10:00 pm by Dan Flynn
But with the case of the United States v. [read post]
18 Oct 2020, 4:59 pm by INFORRM
 Jailing the ringleader for two years and eight months, the judge ruled the attack was “wholly unprovoked… by reason of [Jones’] widely published left-wing and LGBTQ beliefs by a man who has demonstrable right-wing sympathies”. [read post]
15 Jun 2004, 11:47 am
The emphasis is therefore on its being a distraction, something that gives pleasure (see ‘Sports Law' by Gardiner et al (Cavendish, 1998). [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 2:13 pm by Pace Law School Library
L. 807-811 (2011).Thomas, Seth M., et al. 2009-2010 environmental law survey. 44 Ind. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 8:59 am by Barry Sookman
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 US 1 (1966) At the outset it must be remembered that the federal patent power stems from a specific constitutional provision which authorizes the Congress “To promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to . . . [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am by Steven M. Taber
Colan Associates of Florida, LLC and The Jones Payne Group, Inc., of Mass., have agreed to pay $25,000 for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos. [read post]