Search for: "Webster v. Doe" Results 161 - 180 of 771
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jul 2011, 8:26 am
Because the statute does not define “patient,” it looked to the dictionary definition of the word, which included (in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary) “a client for medical service. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 2:02 am by Afro-Corne
 Read on:Natalie HillThere have been a number of cases recently dealing with “passing off”, being Global Vitality v Enzyme Process Africa (2015), Pioneer Foods v Bothaville Milling (2014) and Herbal Zone v Infitech Technologies (2017). [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 10:03 am by admin
  A win for the plutocracy* Yesterday’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
2 Jun 2019, 12:26 pm
At the six-digit subheading level, the subject merchandise does not fall within the terms of HTSUS Subheading 9013.10.Secondary sources: McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (4th ed. 1989); The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1986). [read post]
1 Nov 2008, 10:38 pm
The California Supreme Court held that high blood pressure (hypertension) may be a protected disability condition within the meaning of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in American National Insurance Co. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 9:25 am by John Floyd
  In a May 30, 2017 decision, Ledezma-Cosino v. [read post]