Section 81.102 (a) of the Texas Government Code states that «a person may not
practice law in this state unless the
Not exact matches
The
practice of annual vaccination
in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy
unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by
law (i.e., certain
states require annual revaccination for rabies).
It is also broadly
in line with the view expressed by Simon Firth
in «Derivatives:
Law and
Practice»,
in which he
states that the Determining Party can not subsequently change its mind,
unless it failed to comply with the instructions set out
in the ISDA Master Agreement.
Instead the Court relies on the wording of a
Practice Direction, namely FPR 2010 PD12D which
states that, «the court may
in exercising its inherent jurisdiction make any order or determine any issue
in respect of a child
unless limited by case
law or statute.»
In the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title [section 7] before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated: Provided, That such sixty - day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State la
In the case of an alleged unlawful
practice occurring
in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title [section 7] before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated: Provided, That such sixty - day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State la
in a
State which has a
law prohibiting discrimination
in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title [section 7] before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated: Provided, That such sixty - day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State la
in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a
State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory
practice, no suit may be brought under section 626 of this title [section 7] before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the
State law,
unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated: Provided, That such sixty - day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such
State law.
This program fulfills the 4 - hour Orientation to the Judicial System Training requirement for Virginia
State mediator certifications; this is a requirement
unless licensed to
practice law in Virginia.
287 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Uqdah Realty & Management Corp. — deposits; jurisdiction; fraudulent
practices; failure to pay judgment; vicarious liability; notary public; disclosure of agency relationship; broker violated 19 NYCRR 175.1 when he deposited escrow funds into his operating account; broker committed conversion when his operating account fell below deposit amount; broker engaged
in fraudulent
practices when he illegally retained buyer's trust funds and attempted to qualify prospective buyer for mortgage by falsely
stating their employment; broker failed to disclose his agency relationship to his client; failure to pay judgment; corporate real estate broker vicariously liable and charged with actual knowledge of violation of
law because of representative broker's cognizant misconduct as corporate officer; broker is not required to deposit a refundable commission
in an escrow account
unless contractually demanded; corporate broker and representative broker's license revoked; restitution of deposit of $ 12,000 plus interest; notary public commission revoked based on misconduct as a real estate licensee