Search for: "Does 1-41"
Results 2201 - 2220
of 4,619
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am
Amgen Inc., et al., No. 15-1039 (Does the notice requirement of the BPCIA create an effective six-month exclusivity post-FDA approval?) [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 4:56 am
Kosek, 41 M.J. 60, 64 (U.S. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 11:05 am
Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 5:56 am
8 U.S.C. 1229a; see 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)(B); see also Pet. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 5:02 am
Foley, Protecting Fictional Characters: Defining the Elusive Trademark-Copyright Divide, 41 Conn. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 9:09 am
The Middlesex District Attorney’s office argues that pursuant to G.L. c. 211E, § 3(a)(1), as interpreted by the SJC in a case decided twenty-two years ago, the authority to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum does not go into effect until the Legislature enacts into law the sentencing guidelines recommended by the Sentencing Commission. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 9:12 am
" [para 60]It follows that, lacking one of the two necessary conditions, ie an act of communication, there is no issue of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive even coming into consideration. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm
B.J., February 2012, at 41. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 1:37 pm
at 41; Appl. and Aff. for Search Warrant [Doc. 29-1]. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 8:22 am
The big list: 1. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 3:02 am
See, e.g., Bruesewitz, 562 U.S. at 234 n.41 (including Alabama in list of across the board states).What we have seen recently – and it’s unusual – is two significant law review articles on comment k. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 4:32 pm
” 41 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 8:06 am
He then patched together Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court’s 1961 Costello v. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 4:50 pm
Compared to the US FCPA and the UK Bribery Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act does not have such far reaching implications but this seems to be a step in the right direction. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 5:16 pm
In this case, the right of the applicant to inform the public and the public’s right to receive information had to be balanced against the right of those who testified to respect for the private lives and the impartiality of the judiciary [41]. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 3:09 pm
., Div. 1, 2016) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2016WL ________, Case No. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 2:15 am
It does not preclude the granting of an injunction, non-compliance with which is punishable by a fine".In relation to questions 6,7 and 8 (seeking to clarify the possible exclusion of actions taken against intermediary service providers), the Advocate General sought to strike a balance per recital 41 of the Directive. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 11:08 am
41. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 11:08 am
41. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
What does this means for employers? [read post]
