Search for: "Does 1 - 72" Results 41 - 60 of 3,119
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2017, 1:17 am by EMMA FOUBISTER, MATRIX
On 1 November 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal in R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKSC 72, relating to whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance (‘JSA’), the State unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 8:10 pm by Dennis Crouch
See In re Finch, 535 F.2d 70, 71–72 (C.C.P.A. 1976). [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 10:33 am by John Enser
  The revised section 72(1) would read:The showing or playing in public or the communication to the public of a broadcast to an audience who have not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast is to be seen or heard does not infringe any copyright in- (a) the broadcast; or (b) any sound recording (except in so far as it is an excepted sound recording) included in it.Does that really meet the three-step test? [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 6:51 am
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)][Rules and Regulations][Page 61800-61801]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr01no07-4] --------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 62 RIN 1400-AC38 [Public Notice 5977] Exchange Visitor Program--Fees and Charges for Exchange Visitor Program Services AGENCY: Department of State. [read post]
23 Feb 2022, 7:45 am by Kory A. Crichton
Prior to September 1, 2021, name change applications were required to be made public both upon request for inspection (Rules 1:2-1, 1:38-1) and by way of a publication requirement in a newspaper for two (2) weeks specifically for these types of proceedings (Rule 4:72-4). [read post]
28 Sep 2019, 9:39 pm by Howard Friedman
In its 72-page opinion, the court held that only practices which are an "essential and integral part of religion" are protected by Art. 25(1) of India's Constitution. [read post]
  [1] The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines a zero day vulnerability as a previously unknown hardware, firmware, or software vulnerability. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 12:13 pm
The original proposed rules (71 Federal Register 1 at 48. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 11:37 am by Chad Jimenez
These changes, which are effective immediately following certification of the vote and issuance of a proclamation by the governor (the governor does not have the authority to veto), only apply prospectively. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 12:32 pm by Quinta Jurecic
He says that Doe’s argument allows the government only three options: (1) keep Doe in U.S. custody and allow him to litigate his habeas claim; (2) transfer Doe, but only after full habeas review; (3) free Doe immediately. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" The court, noting that neither §72(1) or §73 mandates any method that the "civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction" must use to select the medical officer, and nothing in the text prohibits DCAS from employing a procurement process to select the medical officer who will conduct the evaluation. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 8:58 pm
June 9, 2014).Issues[1: Obviousness Rejection of Claims 61-72] Quad/Tech argues that the Board erred in rejecting claims 61–72 for obviousness over Ross and Sainio by using hindsight bias to combine the two references […] [and] that Ross and Sainio cannot be combined because the circular lighting configuration of Ross does not teach a high intensity illumination system […]Q.I. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 6:49 am
Preserving the pendency of an adjustment of status application in this manner does not apply to H-1/ H-4 or L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants who are under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 6:53 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Take Our Poll#2 Tribal sovereign immunity v. #3 VAWA With 72 percent of the vote, it turns out sovereignty does predate knowledge of sovereignty. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 3:37 pm
Prior to the law change, a person with a DWI first offense was looking at a punishment range of 72 hours up to 180 days in jail and a fine of $0 up to $2,000 regardless of their breath or blood alcohol concentration. [read post]