Search for: "Does 1-48" Results 281 - 300 of 4,799
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Aug 2014, 5:37 am
  On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of (1) attempt to interfere with an officer because (A) § 53a-167a does not apply to physical or verbal conduct directed against a third party and (B) applying § 53a-167a to conduct with a possible indirect effect upon a police investigation would render the statute void for vagueness; and (2) intimidating a witness. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 11:14 am
A hundred and fourteen patients or 48 percent had simple basilar skull fractures. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 1:13 am
  That asked whether a shape was unregistrable if it has various elements, some of which might fall foul of Article 3(1)(e)(i) and others of which might fall foul of Article 3(1)(e)(ii) and yet where the shape as a whole does not (or at least all of its essential elements do not) fall foul of either provision. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 7:15 am
The usufruct does not represent a participation to the capital of the company, and does not confer the status and rights of shareholder. [read post]
27 Jan 2008, 12:04 am
As such, § 48-161 does not authorize post-award intervention when the employee has chosen to bring a claim against the employer alone. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 2:41 pm by Russell Knight
App. 48, 53-54 (1914) “While it may be true there is no right of property in a dead body, in the ordinary sense, it is also true that the nearest relatives of the deceased are and have been in all ages, so far as known, except under ecclesiastical law, recognized as legally entitled to its custody, to lay it away in burial. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 6:56 pm by Russell Beck
Execuquest Corp., 427 Mass. 46, 48–49 (1998) (confidential information protectable even when it does not qualify as a trade secret); Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 5:00 pm by Rhonda Shirreff
Currently, the ESA does not regulate an employer’s right to schedule work, aside from providing that an employee who attends a scheduled shift must receive at least three hours’ pay, even if the shift is shorter. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 10:31 pm by Marcel Pemsel
Escobar argued inter alia that the BoA had infringed Art. 7(1)(f) EUTMR and the right to the presumption of innocence (Art. 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘CFR’)). [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The explicit clause “in all fields of technology” was not added to A 52(1) until the Diplomatic Conference in the year 2000 harmonised the Article with the TRIPs treaty (see OJ EPO 2007, Special Edition 4, page 48). [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 1:00 am
  Art. 2(1) of the Enforcement Directive sets forth that the Directive applies to "any infringement of intellectual property rights". [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 11:45 am by Paul Cassell
[A 2-1 ruling concludes that the district court cannot even hold a hearing on the subject.] [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 2:12 am
This does make sense and is handled similarly in Germany. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 10:35 am by Public Employment Law Press
”Petitioner does not include a request for specific relief, though the petition does contain specific allegations of violations of law committed by respondent. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 3:36 am
” [para 48]The AG also stressed that not all absolute grounds for refusal for shapes should be intended in the same way. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 3:50 am
 One thing that does strike this Kat is that in the first of this series of cases, EP 1 210 115, directed towards a dosage regime of trastuzumab, was held to be invalid on the basis that the skilled person would attempt a trial of the claimed regime; there was no need for a fair expectation of a positive outcome of the trial - only sufficient expectation to actually conduct it. [read post]