Search for: "Does 1 - 38"
Results 3361 - 3380
of 4,952
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2012, 3:13 am
It was held that this issue gave rise to the following questions [44]: 1. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 4:24 pm
Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 1:03 pm
Meanwhile, a male reader writes: While our “N” of 1 (or, more accurately, 2!) [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 1:11 pm
Over the past year, the USPTO OED has issued 38 Disciplinary Orders. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 12:26 pm
Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 9:44 am
Sessions on first, second and third Tuesdays at 1:00 and 4:00 PM (traffic and criminal) and fourth Tuesdays at 1:00 PM. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
1. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 2:05 pm
However, in our opinion it does more than that. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 8:21 am
Lambert, 11-38, which has now been relisted eight times. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 7:47 am
But expenses will need to be brought under control if demand does not pick up. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 2:46 pm
The draft EIR was circulated in January 2009 and the final EIR was published in May 2009, which included a reduced project description of a 120,000 square foot medical office building (38 feet high) with a two-story (not four-story) parking garage. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 9:11 am
Attorney Jeff Richardson does a nice write-up of the App over at iPhoneJD. [read post]
7 Jan 2012, 2:28 am
Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions, that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 6:02 am
In 38 C.F.R. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 4:26 am
The patient and his or her primary caregiver were 32 collectively in possession of amounts of cannabis only as 33 permitted under this section. 34 35 This affirmative defense does not exclude the assertion of any 36 other defense by a patient or primary caregiver who is charged 37 with a violation of state law related to the patient’s medical 38 use of cannabis. 39 (b)? [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 8:32 am
” Your motion should be that simple and does not need to elaborate on the pending litigation. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:01 am
This means, thankfully, the judge does not have to imagine what the killers would have received at the time of the crime. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 10:20 am
Let’s roll the tape. #1: PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 10:05 pm
(I see that $1 today is equivalent to $0.16 when I was born in 1969.) [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 1:48 pm
How does section 1021 of the NDAA affect this dispute? [read post]
