Search for: "Does 1-51" Results 261 - 280 of 3,919
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2017, 9:00 am
So, while Person was flying on cloud nine with the prospects of reaping mountains of cash from her former friend, I also suggested she look at:California Affirmative Defenses (TR; Vol. 2, Chp. 51, § 1 (Truth - In general))See, TRUTH is an absolute defense in any defamation action. [read post]
The proponents say two main things: (1) “AB 51 simply gives the worker the option of whether or not to form the contract in the first place. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 3:36 am
” [paras 51-52]The AG continued by stressing that:“the fact that the characteristics giving substantial value to the goods are, in part, determined by the public’s perception does not, in my view, mean that account may be taken of the reputation of the trade mark or its proprietor as part of the assessment to determine whether the shape at issue ‘gives substantial value to the goods’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive… [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 9:40 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The Robbins case is a 101 case, and itself is rather interesting (link: https://casetext.com/admin-law/richard-allen-robbins-et-al-1 ) We have the issue of the conclusory statement that everything was covered: First, Appellant does not quote the full text of our statement. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am by Diane Tweedlie
This consequence is an embodiment of the fundamental principle of the right to be heard laid down in Article 113(1) EPC, according to which decisions of the EPO may only be based on grounds on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments (see also T 1066/96, Reasons 2.2 and 3.2, regarding the previous provision in Rule 51(6) EPC 1973: "If the Examining Division does not consent to an amendment or correction requested under paragraph 5,… [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am by Diane Tweedlie
This consequence is an embodiment of the fundamental principle of the right to be heard laid down in Article 113(1) EPC, according to which decisions of the EPO may only be based on grounds on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments (see also T 1066/96, Reasons 2.2 and 3.2, regarding the previous provision in Rule 51(6) EPC 1973: "If the Examining Division does not consent to an amendment or correction requested under paragraph 5,… [read post]
10 Nov 2023, 8:12 am
Article 52(1) of the Charter already provides that limitations on rights must be "provided for by law". [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 8:00 am
New Year’s Day had a much higher than average proportion of fatalities involving alcohol, with just over half (51%) of the January 1 deaths involving an elevated BAC. [read post]
6 Mar 2021, 10:41 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 2004), does not require a different result. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 6:18 am by GPL
 Despite constitutional challenges to the statute, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. 51-1-29.5(c) in the case of Gliemmo v. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 10:19 am by Timothy Kim
Notably, AB 51 does not affect arbitration agreements executed before January 1, 2020. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm by oliver randl
Wilming in epi Information 1/2011, p. 31. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 8:04 am
The certified questions are: (1) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Court? [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:39 am
Given this, the fact an anti-PD-1 antibody is not made or tested in the priority document does not matter (para [125]). [read post]
28 May 2010, 5:00 am by Jerry Sisk
  Impairment rating for injuries after 10/1/00 are as follows:  0-5%   $ 75,000 6-10%  80,000 11-15% 85,000 16-20% 90,000 21-25% 95,000 26-30% 100,000 31-35% 110,000 36-40% 120,000 41-45% 130,000 46-50% 140,000 51-55% 165,000 56-60% 190,000 61-65% 215,000 66-70% 240,000 71-75% 265,000 76-80% 315,000 81-85% 365,000 86-90% 415,000 91-95% 465,000 96-100% 515,000 Now,… [read post]