Search for: "DOES 1-19"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 19,420
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Feb 2019, 10:44 am
Ryan, No. 16-99007 (2-1-19)(Per curiam w/Thomas, Paez, and N. [read post]
6 Aug 2016, 12:00 pm
Deadlocked Over Draft Agreement on Refugees and Migrants," New York Times, 1 Aug. 2016 [text]"U.N. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 3:34 am
Does your company allow insiders to voluntarily terminate a Rule 10b5-1 plan? [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 1:23 pm
The FFCRA requires insurers to cover COVID-19 testing costs with no patient contribution, allocating $1 billion to reimburse providers for COVID-19 testing of uninsured patients. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 does not exclude the degradation (Abbau) of the proteins in a subsequent step because the claim is directed at a process comprising the steps (a), (b), and (c). [12] The argument of the [patent proprietor] according to which document D14 does not contain any reference to a clear solution is not persuasive either. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 7:47 pm
This order was motivated by a recent report that Border Patrol released a migrant family to a Whataburger because they had COVID-19. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 8:37 pm
It does not alter the method of submitting the filing requirements. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
The post Lawyers: What Does it Take to Achieve True Excellence? [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 5:57 pm
Slip op. at 1. [read post]
22 Jun 2008, 3:15 pm
What the circuit does not tell us, but PACER does, is that Walker was sentenced to life in prison. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 5:14 pm
It does so from the perspective of the initial encounter with the enormity of the pandemic. [read post]
13 Apr 2022, 4:30 am
Does it have to be a traditional religion? [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:50 am
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that COVID-19 does not qualify as a “natural disaster” under the federal Workers’ Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act, effectively foreclosing one important argument used by employers in defense of COVID-19-related WARN lawsuits. [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 12:04 pm
The recent executive order does not reference this title. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 12:04 am
These views and opinions are based on well-considered and articulated positions and are an exercise of our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of our Constitution. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 3:25 pm
19–20. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 9:09 am
I showed them Claim 1 of asserted US10898574. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
The original claims 1 and 19, on which the impugned decision is based, essentially constitute combinations of original claims 1, 3 and 20, and 21, 23 and 40, respectively. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 11:59 am
T-Series challenges both sections as being violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 8:40 pm
Intel Corp., Newman Op., at *1. [read post]
