Search for: "Does 1-41"
Results 2461 - 2480
of 4,619
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2015, 7:46 pm
App’x 393, 399 n.1 (6th Cir. 2002). [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:19 am
Thus, a project opponent simply showing substantial evidence supporting a “fair argument” that an otherwise-exempt project may have significant adverse environmental impacts does not defeat an exemption – the opponent must also make a “factual” showing to the satisfaction of the lead agency that “unusual circumstances” exist and have resulted in the potentially significant impacts. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:43 pm
| Hospira v Genetech Mark 1, the Appeal | Litigation-Proof Patents: Avoiding the Most Common Patent Mistakes and Patent Portfolios: Quality, Creation, and Cost reviewed | Italy and San Marino’s friendship on IP is over| Problems and imperfections in biotech patenting: realities on the ground and trying to fix the system.Never too late 31 [week ending Sunday 1 February] -- Women in IP, a MIP’s perspective | Another linking reference to the CJEU | Catarina Holtz on… [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 2:58 pm
Judgment was given today in Case C-41/14Christie's France SNC v Syndicat national des antiquaires, a reference from the French Cour de Cassation for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 2:43 am
It's not droit to a suite ...Article 1(4) further states that:"The royalty shall be payable by the seller. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 4:06 am
But whether or not Kienitz represents a good vehicle for Supreme Court review, I think the occasion does provide a good place to reiterate the importance of necessity to fair use. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 4:40 pm
Reg. 41:346. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 11:44 am
Admin Code, Regulation 420-6-1Religious Exemption: A written objection from the parent or guardian of a student or child based on religious tenets and practices shall be submitted in person by the parent or guardian to the County Health Department for issuance of a Certificate of Religious Exemption from the required immunizations or testing.Medical Exemption: A written objection from the parent or guardian of a student or child based on religious tenets and practices shall be submitted in person by… [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 10:04 am
App. 1, 269 S.W.3d 837 (2007); Davis v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 7:40 pm
P. 41(e)(1)-(5); After the Cunningham case - if the defendant satisfies the burden of going forward - the prosecutor must then show that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 4:50 pm
In Jameel v Dow Jones at [32] –4 [41] a challenge to the presumption of damage as incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected by the Court of Appeal. [read post]
15 Feb 2015, 9:48 am
” Id. at *1 (internal citations omitted). [read post]
14 Feb 2015, 3:01 pm
In contrast to rule 41 (a) (2), rule 41 (a) (1) establishes a procedure for termination of an action without a court order. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm
In order to establish the tort of publication of private facts, the couple would have to show two things: first, that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the video of the so-called ‘sex romp’ and probably also, that the publicity given to the video was highly offensive (Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1). [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 2:55 pm
To the extent relevant, rule 41 (a) (2) provides that: "Except as provided in [rule 41(a) (1)], an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 10:33 am
¶41 (quoting Godfrey v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 4:00 am
Part 1 of PIPEDA (privacy-“Protection of Personal Information”), s. 5, does the same thing—it basis a whole body of laws upon compliance with a National Standard of Canada, the, Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, CAN/CSA-Q830-96 (in Schedule 1 of PIPEDA). [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 9:26 pm
He does not challenge the rejections of claims 6-14 and 16-33.In re Imes, at *1-2. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 10:54 am
The parties may instead file a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 2:25 pm
The Board should exercise caution before advising parties that it does not wish to hear relevant evidence that the Board considers uninteresting or unhelpful. [read post]
