Search for: "Does 1-29"
Results 2801 - 2820
of 12,791
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2017, 9:08 am
Appellants’Br. 29; see id. at 35–39, 46–47, 52–56, 60–62 (discussingNovartis Pharm. [read post]
19 May 2024, 10:27 pm
Comment Here are some initial thoughts: 1. [read post]
12 Aug 2024, 11:47 am
If the state does not reach that benchmark, the wage increases will take effect the sooner of January 1, 2025 or 15 days after the Department of Health Care Services has notified the Legislature that it initiated the data retrieval necessary to implement an increase to hospital quality assurance fee revenues for the program period beginning on January 1, 2025 (the “notification date”). [read post]
29 Mar 2008, 4:41 pm
So the suit asks a judge to determine whether the man must register.It argues that forcing him to do so would amount to retroactive punishment, since the registry went into effect on Jan. 1, 1995, more than a year after his conviction. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 3:26 am
The wording of the claims is not relevant for the present decision and is not reproduced here.Reasons for the DecisionPriority right (Article 87(1) EPC)1. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 12:14 pm
This new act does two things: (1) it precludes litigation against intermediate sellers unless they either took some affirmative action with respect to the product, or the manufacturer for some reason can’t be sued; and (2) it creates a compliance presumption concerning federal safety standards. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 12:18 pm
Stat. 29-1-301 (2009). [read post]
24 Mar 2021, 12:05 pm
SB 95 Is Retroactive to January 1, 2021 The COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave requirements set forth in SB 95 apply retroactively to January 1, 2021. [read post]
2 May 2012, 6:29 am
Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250 ... must be inte [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 9:18 am
See 29 C.F.R. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 4:11 am
§ 29-11-107), but pointed out that the statute only applied to claims arising after July 1, 2013. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 8:23 am
Menard, Inc., January 29, 2018 U.S. [read post]
7 May 2019, 8:27 am
” Id. at 1. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 4:48 pm
Some states, such as California, have expressly determined that the method does not comply with state wage-and-hour laws. [read post]
6 May 2019, 12:05 pm
(relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22, March 1, March 15, March 22, March 29, April 12, April 18 and April 26 conferences) Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 7:22 am
At the center of this case about whether Section 213(a)(1)’s executive exemption covered the Battalion Chiefs was interpretive regulation 29 C.F.R. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 9:31 am
One (1) was withdrawn and that leaves four (4) still pending. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 10:39 am
Doe, 19-1108Issue: Whether the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 10:46 am
§ 843(c)(1) (“The term `advertisement’ does not include material which merely advocates the use of a similar material, which advocates a position or practice, and does not attempt to propose or facilitate an actual transaction in a Schedule I controlled substance. [read post]
25 May 2010, 3:06 pm
” The text of 29 U.S.C. [read post]
