Search for: "Doe 103"
Results 1 - 20
of 3,226
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm
The dedicated staff of this agency does extraordinary work with limited resources. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
A condemnee is defined under the EDPL as "the holder of any right, title, interest, lien, charge or encumbrance in real property subject to an acquisition or proposed acquisition" (EDPL 103 [C]). [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
A condemnee is defined under the EDPL as "the holder of any right, title, interest, lien, charge or encumbrance in real property subject to an acquisition or proposed acquisition" (EDPL 103 [C]). [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 9:00 pm
And the inquiry does not consist of “[t]rying to identify speech that would benefit a president politically. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 5:11 am
’ Such a requirement is ambiguous, and does not provide any guidance as to when ‘use’ has ended and ‘storage’ has begun. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 5:50 pm
WHAT DOES THIS RESOLUTION ULTIMATELY DO? [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 4:49 pm
It does not matter whether the privileged words used are defamatory or not, they simply cannot be used to ground a claim (except by way of providing context to other words or where an exception e.g. malice, applies); and the privilege operates to limit what the claimant can rely upon. [read post]
2 Jun 2024, 1:24 pm
So what does Jennings tell us about references and § 103? [read post]
31 May 2024, 10:44 am
§ 253 and concluded that “the invalidity of … claim 1 because of double patenting, even if true, does not necessarily require the invalidation of claims 5, 19, 40, and 43. [read post]
31 May 2024, 5:55 am
Notably, the Prosecutor’s statement itself does not mention belligerent occupation. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:10 pm
§ 103. [read post]
24 May 2024, 12:39 pm
The opinion though doe snot grapple with this issue in any depth but rather appears to assume that the analysis will begin with a primary reference, without thoroughly examining potential alternatives. [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:38 am
The reasoning of Whitman Saddle carries over to the modern § 103 standard of obviousness. [read post]
22 May 2024, 4:03 am
Petrokansky to advise me what he [sic] was signing” (NYSCEF Doc No. 103, ¶ 23). [read post]
21 May 2024, 9:45 am
§ 103 “applies to all types of patents” and the text does not “differentiate” between design and utility patents. [read post]
18 May 2024, 7:41 am
” Doe v. [read post]
16 May 2024, 10:00 am
However, GML § 103 (16) specifically exempts the bids described therein from compliance with subdivision one. [read post]
16 May 2024, 10:00 am
However, GML § 103 (16) specifically exempts the bids described therein from compliance with subdivision one. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:00 am
"Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and parties challenging a duly enacted statute face the initial burden of demonstrating the statute's invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt" (Delgado v State of New York, 194 AD3d 98, 103 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], affd 39 NY3d 242 [2022]; see Center for Jud. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:00 am
"Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and parties challenging a duly enacted statute face the initial burden of demonstrating the statute's invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt" (Delgado v State of New York, 194 AD3d 98, 103 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], affd 39 NY3d 242 [2022]; see Center for Jud. [read post]