Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 2661 - 2680
of 3,421
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2011, 7:42 am
Click here for the full Sullivan & Cromwell publication on Beneficial Ownership Rules. [1] The term “security-based swap” does not include, among other things, an agreement to purchase or sell a security on a fixed basis or any put, call, straddle, option or privilege on any security. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
For example, the “as received” sample with the lowest crystallinity value (54%) in Table I does not have the lowest crystallinity value after annealing. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 3:45 pm
Lytle does not dispute he refused to sign or give a breath test. ? [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 3:26 am
The following is extracted from the Supreme Court’s press summary: The court considers three issues: (1) do the conditions of entitlement for SPC give rise to direct discrimination? [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 10:13 am
[ECF 54]. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 10:50 am
We’re not sure our first W-G post did that very well, so we’ll try again today.The first two questions to answer are pretty basic: (1) What is a “circuit split” anyway? [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 9:49 am
" In that case the Court was considering the importance of rights under Section 5A vis-`-vis Section 17(1) and Section 17(1)(A) of the Act. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
A telephone conversation with only one of the examiners of that division does not safeguard this right in the same way as OPs. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 5:47 am
The application for judicial review challenged the promulgation of sections 35, 53, 54 and 55 of O. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
The present decision deals with a case where the Opposition Division (OD) had taken a rather unusal course of action: The third auxiliary request filed during the oral proceedings (OPs) was found to comply with A 84, A 54 and A 56 on the basis of hypothetical amendments still to be carried out. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 6:50 am
For an assessed value to be considered excessive or discriminatory, it must be proved that the assessment does not fairly represent one of two standards: 1. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:22 am
Moreover, the submission is contrary to the decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN (No. 2), which remains binding on this court” [54-55]. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:00 am
It’s certainly not something most people think will happen to them… until it does. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 7:16 am
In short the Court held that the date of the crash itself does not decide the issue, rather the date that the section 20 claim against ICBC is crystallized does. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 5:25 am
Errico received four text messages on her cell phone, from 7:54 p.m. until 8:21 p.m. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 8:00 am
Berlin, 726 A.2d 1215, 1218 & n.1 (Del. 1999). [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 5:05 pm
Figure 1. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
Therefore, it is not clear what forms the prior art under A 54(2) in the impugned decision. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:03 pm
Does this trend reflect a durable change in attitudes towards crime and punishment, or is this about short-term fiscal pressures and the need to reduce bloated corrections budgets? [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 12:12 pm
Does this reflect a durable change in attitudes towards crime and punishment, or is this about short-term fiscal pressures and the need to reduce bloated corrections budgets? [read post]
