Search for: "J. DOE # 1"
Results 301 - 320
of 14,506
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Apr 2016, 6:52 am
The preamble of Claim 1 does not describe a tangible medium, either, such that it could 'give life' to the claim. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 3:09 am
Thus, inasmuch as plaintiff's complaint does not state any cognizable claim in law or in equity, it must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see Heffez, 56 AD3d at 526; Simmons, 32 AD3d at 465). [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 4:16 am
Those questions are answered, in this context, in Matter of Mill Creek Phase 1 , Supreme Court, Kings County, Gerges, J. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 5:57 am
Where does Kyllo and the reasonable expectation of privacy go from here? [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Otherwise, the appeal must be rejected as inadmissible under R 101(1).According to A 108, third sentence, “[w]ithin four months of notification of the decision, a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. [read post]
21 May 2011, 9:00 am
LEXIS 742 (May 17, 2011): As noted, the girlfriend's affidavit does not establish any reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement area or in the box. [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 5:14 am
Beau J. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 5:00 am
§ 2C:45-1 may apply. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 4:30 am
Here, though, is what I do know: 1. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:00 am
G-J. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
J 37/89 [3.5]). [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 10:16 am
Court sketch by William J. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 3:03 am
In Angeles v Aronsky 2012 NY Slip Op 30851(U) April 2, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 100091/2009 Judge: Judith J. [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 7:32 am
Correction can take the form of amending the incorrect statement or adding omitted matter (J 8/80, J 6/91).Presence of a mistake5. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 3:30 am
Michael J. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:54 am
As regards the meaning of "pending application" in R 25(1) EPC 1973, one interpretation is given in the Information from the EPO (OJ EPO 2002, 112). [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 12:54 am
The BBC had made submissions on this point, based on the case of Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] 1 QB 1. [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
The board does not agree with the finding of the contested decision that the competent ED, i.e. the primary examiner acting on behalf of the ED, issued such a communication. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:35 am
Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900. [read post]
7 May 2015, 11:00 am
Patrick J. [read post]
