Xxxxxx v. City of Durham,183 F.3d 323, 329 n.3 (4th Cir. 1999).
Xxxxxx v. Houma Psychiatric Hospital dba Bayou Oaks Hospital, 32nd Judicial Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana, Civil No. 119600. Defendant served with notice of suit on July 1, 1997 for negligence involving wrist fracture of plaintiff while patient
Xxxxxx v. Google, Case No. 2019-CH-00990) ; (iii) proof that he/she is in the Settlement Class; (iv) all grounds for the objection, with factual and legal support for the stated objection, including any supporting materials; and (v) the objector’s signature. If represented by counsel, the objecting Settlement Class Member must also provide the name and telephone number of his/her counsel, in addition to the information set forth in (i) through (v) above. If the objecting Settlement Class Member intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel, he/she/they must so state in the written objection, and must also identify any witnesses he/she/they may call to testify at the Final Approval Hearing and all exhibits he/she/they intends to introduce into evidence at the Final Approval Hearing, which must also be attached to, or included with, the written objection.
Xxxxxx v. V. Zubakin
Xxxxxx v. Canada (AG), 2016 ONSC 3865; Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx Ltd., [2009] O.J. No. 3463 at paras. 39-40 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2010 ONCA 613, leave to appeal ref’d [2010] SCCA 438; Xxxxxx v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2016 ABQB 260 at para. 32; Merchant Law Group v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 at para. 34. 392106701 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Novajet) v. 2288450 Ontario Ltd., 2016 ONSC 2673 at para. 42; Aristocrat Restaurants Ltd. v. Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 5164 (S.C.J.); Xxxxxx v. Rexcraft Storage & Warehouse Inc., [1998] O.J. No. 3240 at para. 10 (C.A.). [133] Section 45(1) of the Competition Act currently reads:
Xxxxxx v o.s. undertakes to use the Data solely for the purposes of the Project unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties.
Xxxxxx v. Xxxxxx, 214 Cal. App. 3d 668, 262 Cal. Xxxx. 000 (1989); California Revenue ------ and Taxation Code Section 23301 et seq.); and -- ---
Xxxxxx v. Ralee Engineering Co., 960 P.2d 1046 (Cal.
Xxxxxx v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. CIVRS 910758, in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California – Reported in the Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2010. (Attachment 5).
Xxxxxx v. Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, 21st Century Oncology and Naples Urology Associates, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-228-FtM-99DNF (M.D. Fla.), pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) (the Civil Action). The relator alleges that the defendants submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid for (1) fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) tests that were not medically necessary and (2) evaluation and management services that were upcoded.
