Search for: "Sloan v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 166
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2020, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
A Case Study of the Capital One Data Breach, Working Paper CISL# 2020-16, Nelson Novaes Neto MIT Sloan School of Management; IPEN – Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratory; Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paolo (PUCSP), Stuart Madnick, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – Sloan School of Management, Anchises Moraes G. de Paula, C6 Ban [read post]
29 Mar 2020, 4:49 pm by INFORRM
  United States Netflix has won a defamation case for the show When They See Us, which tells the story of the Central Park Five. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 4:09 pm by fvanloon
State Department Over Hillary Clinton’s Secrets” to Page, Moffa and a redacted General Counsel office official, with a note saying, “Good job, State… \u-19179? [read post]
9 Feb 2020, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts On 4 to 7 February 2020 Warby J heard the trial in the case of Sube v News Group Newspapers. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 12:00 pm by ernst
They raise issues as diverse as class, colonialism, familial dynamics, expectations and obligations, mental health, and the proper roles of the legal profession and the welfare state. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 9:30 pm by ernst
Supreme Court in the current Section 1981 case Comcast v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 4:23 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP  2018 NY Slip Op 09030 [168 AD3d 70]  December 27, 2018 Singh, J. [read post]
7 May 2019, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP  2018 NY Slip Op 09030 [168 AD3d 70]  December 27, 2018  Singh, J. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 4:05 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Aronson, Mayesfsky & Sloan, LLP, 168 AD3d 70, 75-76 [1st Dept 2018]; Harvey v Greenberg, 82 AD3d 683, 683 [1st Dept 2011]; Katebi v Fink, 51 AD3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2008]). [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]