Search for: "Does 1 - 34"
Results 181 - 200
of 5,676
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2015, 2:21 pm
Strangely, however, s. 51(1) does not seem to prohibit contracting work to unlicensed persons. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 6:23 am
Therefore, it was not properly enacted pursuant to Article II, Section 34. [read post]
24 Nov 2006, 12:54 am
" If that statement alone does not motivate organizations to review their records retention policy to determine whether it addresses electronic data issues, then the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which take effect on December 1, 2006, should prod organizations to do so. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 10:59 am
Being the Editor-in-Chief of the Criminal Reports, New Series, I had the LRCC’s full Report On Evidence published at, (1976), 34 C.R.N.S. 26. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 5:11 am
"The Appellate Court stated:Although N.J.S.A. 34:15–54 does not expressly create an exception to the oneyearrequirement for filing a motion for reinstatement, our courts have recognizedthat compensation judges possess the inherent power to excuse the one-year timebar upon the grounds set forth in Rule 4:50–1. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 9:47 am
Novelty (Article 100(a) and Article 54(1) EPC)Document (1) does not provide a direct and unambiguous disclosure of the feature of intramuscular injection and is thus not novelty-destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1.(...)5. [read post]
17 Jan 2021, 1:33 pm
Therefore, we conclude that claim 1’s mere call for sensing and processing static and dynamic acceleration information using generic components does not transform the nature of claim 1 into patent eligible subject matter. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 8:35 am
App. ___ (Nov. 1, 2022). [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 3:45 pm
But does the standard of patent validity actually matter? [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 2:10 am
It can also be used when your opponent fails to disclose a fact witness or fails to turn over documents that were covered by a Rule 34 document request. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 2:08 am
Our suggestion to the contrary in Doe v. [read post]
26 Jan 2008, 4:10 pm
The term includes a failure of a transferee of structured settlement payment rights to timely provide a true and complete disclosure statement to a payee as provided under IC 34-50-2 in connection with a direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights.Which brings us back to common-law, tortious fraud which is not required when a supplier does nothing to cure (fix) the deceptive act within 30 days of receiving notice of the consumer's injury.The consumer… [read post]
31 May 2009, 6:55 am
A copy of SEC Release No. 34-59880 is available here. [read post]
15 May 2007, 6:12 am
The Second Circuit began its analysis by holding that because the ICA does not explicitly authorize private actions for violations of §§ 34(b), 36(a) or 48(a), the presumption is that Congress did not intend to authorize private rights of action for such violations. [read post]
27 Sep 2021, 12:34 am
The floor amendments of June 3, 2021, were: (1) exclude from the definition of employer any contractor as that term is defined in section 3 of P.L.1999, c.238 (C.34:11-56.50); and (2) provide that the bill does not apply to athletes employed by professional sports teams. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 3:18 am
The court said that it found no basis to disturb the imposition of such a penalty as "[t]he penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness," citing the Pell Doctrine [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222]. [read post]
10 May 2017, 3:30 am
The act of disclosure does not fall within subsection 41.26(1) and, thus, is not subject to the “no regulation and, thus, no fee” default rule in subsection 41.26(2). [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 12:21 pm
This is a dramatic change, but it does not remove a large part of the analyst restrictions that were put in place, so that the impact will need further attention. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
The Court reasoned that if “national interest” referred exclusively to security, s 34(2) could not provide relief to any person deemed inadmissible under s 34(1)(d) (“being a danger to the security of Canada”). [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 7:56 am
The frequency of such claims beg the questions (1) what exactly is a “confidential relationship,” and (2) what is the practical benefit to an objectant in establishing that one existed? [read post]
