Search for: "Does 1-37" Results 2561 - 2580 of 5,286
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2016, 6:08 am
Defendant provides an English translation for 37 seconds of questioning. [read post]
18 May 2016, 4:20 am
The SCPNG was not concerned solely with detention in and of itself (and, in particular, the fact that such detention lacked statutory authorisation and was not constitutionally permissible),[1]but also with the validity of an enactment (the Constitution Amendment (No 37) (Citizenship) Law; “the Amendment”)) purporting to amend the PNG Constitution. [read post]
10 May 2016, 7:39 pm by Dennis Crouch
§ 315(b) does not trigger the one-year bar for filing an IPR petition where the entire complaint in the prior civil action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. [read post]
10 May 2016, 10:21 am by Kelly Buchanan
Law No. 12,846 of August 1, 2013, created a similar tool to be used against [read post]
9 May 2016, 12:27 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Under the Board’s uncontested construction,“claim 1 does not require removal of the protectinggroup to allow subsequent nucleotide incorporation,”let alone quantitative removal. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:44 am by Bill Marler
” [18] The Incidence of Listeria Infections Listeria bacteria are found widely in the environment in soil, including in decaying vegetation and water, and may be part of the fecal flora of a large number of mammals, including healthy human adults. [4, 18] According to the FDA, “studies suggest that 1-10% of humans may be intestinal carriers of Listeria. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 8:47 am by Marty Lederman
 (This adds up to 38 petitioners, not 37, because one petitioner, Southern Nazarene University, uses an insured student plan and a self-insured employee plan.) [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 8:22 am
The EPO case law does not make this distinction, which may prove very important with regards to virtual reality applications. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:41 am by Marty Lederman
 Most importantly, under the Court's approach, as under the existing accommodation, separate “contraceptive coverage [would] be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies,” Order at 1, and the insurer would make payments to the employees, dependents and/or students directly, not through the employer’s health plan. [read post]