Search for: "Does 1-29"
Results 2821 - 2840
of 12,791
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2021, 11:52 pm
If, at any time from January 1 through March 28, 2021, an employee was unable to work for any of the qualifying reasons for the new COVID-19 supplemental PSL and was not paid in that period, the employer must, on the employee’s request, pay the supplemental PSL the employee would have been paid had the leave been taken on or after March 29, 2021. [read post]
8 May 2014, 12:28 pm
Bruch, the United States Supreme Court first considered Section 3(7) (29 U.S.C. [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:12 am
Bruch, the United States Supreme Court first considered Section 3(7) (29 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 2:37 pm
By Murphy Yanbing Chen Introduction—Copyright and Creative Commons Licensing Where does creativity come from? [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 2:28 pm
§ 211B.11, subd. 1 provides, in relevant part as follows:Soliciting near polling places. [read post]
1 Dec 2012, 5:19 pm
80a–3), but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act.The end user exemption excludes private funds. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 3:38 am
, Says TTABPrecedential No. 13: TTAB Dismisses 2(d) Claim but Finds MINIMELTS Merely Descriptive of PharmaceuticalsPrecedential No. 12: TTAB Affirms 2(e)(1) and 2(d) Refusals of HOUSEBOAT BLOB for Inflatable MattressesPrecedential No. 5: Fame of Movie "JAWS" Supports 2(d) Refusal of Cooking Show MarksPrecedential No. 3: Despite Consent Agreement, TTAB Finds TIME TRAVELER BLONDE Confusable With TIME TRAVELER for BeerSection 2(e)(1) - Mere Descriptiveness Precedential No.… [read post]
25 Jan 2014, 8:47 am
American University International Law Review 29 no. 1 (2013): 1-122)). [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 5:00 am
Question 2: Does each claim line in the CRCP need to be dispositioned individually? [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 11:11 am
X ZR 29/15, GRUR 2016/921 (Eli Lilly v Actavis), paras. 83-85). [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 7:41 am
” Slip Op. at 8, citing the ’453 Patent at column 1, lines 48-53. [read post]
20 May 2018, 2:13 pm
| Google cannot hide behind its algorithms, German court finds | Does the InfoSoc Directive envisage digital exhaustion? [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 4:15 am
Generally speaking, China’s trade mark law adopts the first-to-file principle, yet it does not explicitly stipulate the regulatory measures to adopt against malicious applications. [read post]
1 Dec 2012, 5:19 pm
80a–3), but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act.The end user exemption excludes private funds. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 10:43 am
YouTube’s actions would therefore amount to a communication to the public in the sense of Art. 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Quarterman, No. 06-20764 The prohibition against successive section 2254 petitions does not require a prisoner to challenge all judgments from a single court in a single habeas petition. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:40 am
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 4:36 am
§ 203(e)(1). [read post]
1 May 2011, 8:25 am
§ 206(a)(1). [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 10:34 am
(2) If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Does an action in the context of the insolvency to set a transaction aside fall within Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation [No 44/2001]? [read post]
