Search for: "State v. C. G. B."
Results 221 - 240
of 2,342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
(2) Extradition may be refused in any of the following circumstances: (a) If the person whose surrender is sought is being prosecuted in the Requested Party for the same offense; (b) If the Requested Party has decided either not to prosecute or to terminate prosecution for the same offense; or (c) If the person whose surrender is sought has been tried and acquitted or punished in the territory of a third State for the same offense. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 8:19 am
V,§ 2(a), Fla. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 8:19 am
V,§ 2(a), Fla. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:10 am
C. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 10:30 am
Additionally, a motions hearing in United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 9:28 am
The case, United States v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 7:55 pm
See Exxon Research & Eng’g v. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 2:55 pm
State Citation: 2008 WY 97 Docket Number: 04-180 & 06-255 Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 7:30 pm
In Mid 2011 - the Colorado State Legislature enacted a law - House Bill 11-1064, which created a presumption, subject to the State Board of Parole, in favor of granting parole to an inmate who has reached his or her parole eligibility date and who is serving a sentence for certain drug-related crimes, provided that the offender meets other requirements specified in the bill. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
A leave-on hair cosmetic composition, comprising the following components (A), (B) and (C): (A) malic acid or a salt thereof; (B) at least one organic solvent selected from benzylacohol or 2-benzyloxyethanol; and (C) a set polymer, selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone polymer compounds, acidic vinyl ether polymer compounds, acidic polyvinyl acetate polymer compounds, acidic acrylic polymer compounds, amphoteric acrylic polymer compounds, basic acrylic polymer… [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
It was found that the disclosure of the invention was of such a general nature that it deprived the skilled person of the information he/she needed to understand how to proceed from the first reaction value collected in step A through steps B, C and D to the determination on a probabilistic basis of the genotype of step E. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 9:38 am
United States, with Theodore B. [read post]
19 Jun 2008, 4:08 am
See United States v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 9:31 am
BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., d/b/a ALTERRA/STERLING HOUSE OF FLORENCE, ALTERRA, INC., d/b/a STERLING HOUSE OF FLORENCE, STERLING HOUSE OF FLORENCE, KAD RANDAL, VALEYNCIA PRICE, ANNIE LEWIS, and SHARON LUFLIN; IDA AZZARO, ETC V. [read post]
5 May 2014, 1:14 pm
Olivas, William B. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
On the other hand, “a disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary […] to restore novelty […]” (see G 1/03 [headnote 2.2] and [3]).[5.5.1] The second paragraph of G 1/03 [3] states“However, the only justification for the disclaimer is to exclude a novelty-destroying disclosure […]. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 10:24 am
Posner) Douglas G. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 4:49 am
See, e. g., 31 U. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 11:32 am
In United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 5:50 am
Samuels v. [read post]
