Search for: "Does 1-54" Results 2641 - 2660 of 3,413
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2007, 10:07 pm
denied, 546 U.S.1163 (2006).............................. 23, 40, 54, 55, 58Morales v. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 6:53 am by Sital Kalantry
”[17] The dissent disagreed with this interpretation and stated that the “general concept of ‘living together’ does not fall directly under any of the rights and [guarantees] . . . within the Convention. [read post]
9 Nov 2013, 9:07 am by Veronika Gaertner
The CJEU argued, however, that there is no equivalent autonomous concept in the Regulation, that art. 5 no. 3 must be interpreted restrictively and that the plaintiff could instead have sued under art. 5 no. 1 or art. 6 no. 1 of the Regulation. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 2:00 pm by Robert Liles
  Nevertheless, just because a certain treatment regime is medically necessary does not mean that it will be covered by one or more payors. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 6:00 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
Retroactive citizenship for these “lost Canadians” would date to January 1, 1947 (or April 1, 1949, in the case of Newfoundland). [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 10:55 am by Steven Boutwell
  The IRP process does not result in approval of a proposed resource plan or approval of construction or acquisition or any particular resources. [read post]
21 May 2024, 5:55 am by itars sis
Nevertheless, the AI Office’s role does not imply to verify or proceed to “a work-by-work assessment of the training data in terms of copyright compliance. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 10:15 am by Colby Pastre
 Legislative attorneys have said the state constitution does not allow for remote voting. [read post]
17 Oct 2022, 2:55 pm by Kevin Kaufman
Second, it has a flat 20 percent tax on individual income that does not apply to personal dividend income. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 5:15 am by Richard Renner
Boston Scientific Corp., 433 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2006)(holding that SOX has no application to employees outside the United States). [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am by Tana Fye
              The existing Indian family exception is a judicially created doctrine holding that the ICWA does not apply to those Indian children who have never been a member of an Indian home or culture and probably never would be.[14]  Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians[15], many states adopted the existing Indian family exception. [read post]