Search for: "MATTER OF K M" Results 241 - 260 of 2,364
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Nor is such a lack of clear definition necessarily a matter for objection under A 84 only. [read post]
18 May 2015, 5:53 pm
A New York Probate Lawyer said in this probate proceeding, respondents M and J move to compel the co-executors of the estate, S, the surviving spouse of decedent, and K, accountant of decedent, to reproduce: (1) the original and/or photocopies of prior wills of the decedent; (2) un-redacted photocopies of two letters between decedent and the attorney/draftsman, Mr. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 3:33 am by Robert A. Epstein
  For instance, if the payor spouse is required by his employer to contribute $30,000 per year towards his 401(k), should such money be included in that spouse's income in determining support? [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 5:00 am by JB
  Because the essay is fairly long, I'm breaking it into two parts. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 6:19 am
Securities Laws Posted by Robert Crea, Anthony Nolan, Eden Rohrer, K&L Gates LLP, on Saturday, July 7, 2018 Tags: Bitcoin, Blockchain, CFTC, Cryptocurrency, ICOs, Jurisdiction, No-action letters, Rule 506, SEC, SEC investigations, Securities regulation SLB 14I: Impact of Board Discussion on 2018 NALs Posted by Arthur H. [read post]
24 Jul 2007, 9:29 am
One defense was that the contract was void because M & K Realty, LLC had not been formed when the contract was executed. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 6:19 am by Employee Benefits Law Report
Safe Harbor Matching Contributions The final 401(k) and 401(m) regulations issued in 2004 had contained procedures for suspending safe harbor matching contributions. [read post]
22 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
For example, instead of taking the value of 100 Å as proposed by the Board the skilled person could equally have taken a value of 1 μm, leading to a sheet resistance of 105 Ohms/square for a conductivity of 0.1 S/cm, or 10 μm, leading to a sheet resistance of 104 Ohms/square, outside of the claimed range. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
In the same way, decision T 240/04 [16.3] already stated as regards new claims not sufficiently connected to the subject-matter of the one previously filed: “In einer solchen Situation den neuen Antrag zuzulassen würde einem Patentinhaber praktisch die Möglichkeit geben, nach Belieben eine Zurückverweisung an die Erstinstanz zu erzwingen. [read post]