Search for: "DOES I-X"
Results 3441 - 3460
of 7,399
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2015, 7:25 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Re X. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 11:41 pm
Sadly it does not but the idea is a useful one and worth keeping an eye on. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 12:32 pm
But I’d limit any defense of current U.S. law by making the observation that one could argue we get it close to backwards, in deciding which entities should be taxed each way.There are several reasons why it matters which way one does things. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
ARGUMENT I. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 11:10 am
“I am satisfied, reading their reasons fairly and as a whole, that the Appeal Panel considered all of the necessary factors that I have articulated for the proper test to be applied. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 6:52 am
Article X, section 4(c) does not serve to protect Norma from her own actions in transferring her own homestead property. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 4:00 am
Michael SprattI come to praise Peter MacKay not to bury him I come to praise Peter MacKay not to bury him. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 12:30 am
To enforce the mandate, impose a penalty on anyone who does not purchase the minimum mandated coverage. [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 11:43 pm
Oh, I almost forgot, what did you think of the Super Bowl ads? [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 9:57 am
App’x 672, 675 (11th Cir. 2009). [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:19 pm
App’x 102, 104 (3d Cir.2011). [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 12:57 pm
Also, of course, so far as I can tell all of this would have been found by a simple metal detector or by x-raying carry-on bags, again showing that spending many millions on fancy scanners is not necessary. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 8:37 pm
I. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 2:08 pm
I don’t find the concept entirely offensive. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:35 pm
I do not accept this submission. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 8:51 am
The author was Brigitte Madrian, presenting “Does Front-Loading Taxation Increase Savings? [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 7:07 am
For completeness, Mw is the sum of the (square of molecular weight X number with that molecular weight) divided by sum of (molecular weight X number with that molecular weight).) [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:29 pm
As such, the claims in Group I were held to be indefinite.From an IPBiz post, July 27, 2013:As to the group I claims, Teva had a problem because of arguments made in file histories. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:46 am
[T]his legal standard does not mean that manufacturers are free to produce products that cause harm and remain unaccountable. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 8:06 am
Usage X is wrong, they say. [read post]
