Search for: "Does 1-68"
Results 161 - 180
of 2,489
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Ed. 2d 929, 68 Fed. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Ed. 2d 929, 68 Fed. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 7:59 pm
WTO dispute settlement does, indeed, currently experience a peak in terms of the total number of cases pending before panels and the AB (as of 30 April 2018, respectively, 18 and 8). [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:32 am
§§198(1-a), (1-d). [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
Does the cost of summer camp (which we too remember paying) justify litigation? [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 7:25 am
Additionally, the current version of Regulation 68 does not, as Assembly Rivera's sponsoring memorandum erroneously states, require a claimant to justify a late notice of accident or proof of claim by "clear and convincing evidence". [read post]
2 Jan 2010, 11:00 am
" The fact that the Opposition Division (OD) has, according to the minutes, expressed the opinion that claim 1 as amended satisfies the requirements of A 123(2), does not alter this finding because a corresponding statement is not justified or even made in the contested decision. [read post]
30 May 2019, 1:00 pm
Table 1. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 12:35 pm
§ 2E5.1(b)(1) enhancement, Mr. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:00 am
Gomez (SCOTUS 1/21/16) (discussed here), the Supreme Court of the United States held that an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff ’s individual claim does not render a putative class action moot. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:00 am
Gomez (SCOTUS 1/21/16) (discussed here), the Supreme Court of the United States held that an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff ’s individual claim does not render a putative class action moot. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 8:26 am
Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 68 Sec. 25, eff. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 4:27 am
In addition, Symczyk does not contest Defendants’ assertion that the 68 offer of judgment fully satisfied her claims…. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 1:51 pm
In respect of novelty, the GC expressly referred not only to art. 19 but also to art. 10(1) CDR, which reads:“The scope of the protection conferred by a Community design shall include any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 7:48 am
The court did so here, with the consent of the parties and, as a result, the cost limitation set out in Rule 15-1, does not apply. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 7:46 am
§ 41.67(c)(1)(vii). [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:51 am
The Fourteenth Amendment does limit state government, and thus also local governments; but ever since it was enacted, there has been a controversy about whether it "incorporates" the Bill of Rights against the states. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
T 961/00 [1]. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv dismissed and denied 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]; see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1st Dept 1979]). [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv dismissed and denied 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]; see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1st Dept 1979]). [read post]
