Search for: "DOES, 1 through 25, inclusive" Results 301 - 320 of 796
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
During my recent visit to Columbia Law School, Professor John Coffee shared with me a draft of a short article that later appeared in the New York Law Journal.[1] Coffee’s article assessed the prospects in the U.S. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 2:31 pm by Robert Liles
Question #1Does OPM maintain its own public registry of individuals and entities who have been debarred or suspended from the FEHBP program? [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 7:55 pm by Cookson Beecher
Pure and simple, mandatory funding for a variety of organic programs written into the 2008 farm bill didn’t qualify for automatic inclusion into the farm bill extension. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 11:14 am by Eugene Volokh
The choice to focus on 17-to-25-year-olds conveys a related message. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 2:38 pm by Shea Denning
Mathis, who represented himself at trial, was convicted of all the charges and was sentenced to 13 to 25 months imprisonment. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 11:56 am by Medicare Set Aside Services
LEXIS 23026October 25, 2011, Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)November 17, 2011, Filed   [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 8:46 pm by Benjamin Wittes
Let us consider each of these three contentions in turn, for each has a complicated story behind it–a story that does not favor the plurality’s conclusion. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 9:35 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
Likewise, individuals who were provided premium-free MSP coverage between the ages of 19 and 25 for a period ending after January 1, 2020, will receive supplementary benefits until December 31, 2020. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 5:25 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Started by coding cases that just deal with 1 ad or 1 analysis on group of statements or ads. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 11:45 am by Brian E. Barreira
Mem. at 12-13 (suggesting clarification of the issues through prehearing conference, pre-hearing briefing or keeping the record open, all of which take time), citing 130 Code Mass. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 8:58 am by Phil Dixon
The defendants appealed. (1) The defendants argued the use of the word “robbery” by government witnesses during trial was prejudicial and violated the rules of evidence for lay and expert opinion. [read post]