Search for: "In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10" Results 2241 - 2260 of 5,508
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Oct 2011, 3:30 pm by FDABlog HPM
Karst –    On October 19, 2011, FDA issued a proposed rule to amend the Agency’s December 29, 1992 (57 Fed. [read post]
9 Aug 2024, 12:49 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Canada: determined as matter of common law. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 8:47 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 Introductory Background Briefs        1. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 1:16 pm
1)Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 27, 2016, arguing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all three counts because no genuine issue of material fact exists. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
An important breakthrough may emanate from the jurisprudential front; in its landmark ruling in Neubauer et al v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 5:42 am
It denied leave to amend the complaint on the ground that any amendment would be futile. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 6:59 am by Tom Goldstein
The high court’s ruling in Texas v. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 9:12 am by J. Gordon Hylton
At the end of June, the court ruled that the amendment “unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities. [read post]
2 May 2014, 7:46 am by Mack Sperling
If you are affronted by the payment of $44.4 million to Johnson for "a few hours work,"  here are some things that you should know: (1) the Amended Complaint referred to only about $10 million in payments (Op. [read post]
28 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
The SLB lays out this risk-related framework as: "rather than focusing on whether a proposal and supporting statement relate to the company engaging in an evaluation of risk, we will instead focus on the subject matter to which the risk pertains or that gives rise to the risk. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm by Anna Christensen
NanceDocket: 09-1115Issue(s): (1) Whether a police officer may be held liable on a claim under 42 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Claim 1 of the main request before the Board (as compared to claim 1 as filed) read (additions in blue, deleted parts in red colour):The Board finds this amendment not to comply with A 123(2):[2.1.1] Claim 1 of the main request differs from claim 1 as originally filed, inter alia, in that the feature according to which the computer interface permits to supply power to the light emitting assembly has been deleted. [read post]