Search for: "Does 1-35" Results 3461 - 3480 of 9,549
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Dec 2017, 1:16 pm by Doorey
  The minimum wage will increase to $14 on January 1, 2018 and $15 on January 1 2019. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 12:00 am by Shawn Nevers
 Not only does this help you retain things better, but it can help add some variety to your study techniques. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 1:54 pm by Sme
Utah Labor Commission (Utah, December 1, 2017) (affirming denial of temporary total disability:  Utah Code § 35-1-65 does not abrogate any previously existing  remedy, since the legislature created an adequate substitute remedy in workers' compensation; it is therefore no violation of the Open Courts Clause)Waite v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 10:36 am by Dennis Crouch
A patent is invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 7:01 am by Michael Fitch
(iv) The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 9:30 pm by David E. Lewis
Still, this does not tell the whole story. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 6:34 am by Paula Lombardi
It should be noted that breach of judge’s order is contempt of court. [1] (1997), 35 W.C.B. (2d) 501 (Ont. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 6:00 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
EI benefits are for a maximum of 35 weeks within a 52-week window. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:26 am by Dennis Crouch
On top of that, the CBM program even includes two provisions that uniquely disadvantage the owners of CBM patents: (1) a narrow estoppel provision that gives petitioners broader abilities to challenge CBM patents in both the PTAB and district court;[vii] and (2) a rare right for interlocutory appeal of any decision denying a motion to stay parallel litigation—with even rarer de novo appellate review. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Hayley Evans
That personal data be adequate, relevant, and not excessive (Section 35); 4. [read post]
25 Nov 2017, 2:00 am by NCC Staff
Days later, in a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the captives of the Amistad. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 3:44 am by DARRYL HUTCHEON, MATRIX
The Court’s principal basis for this conclusion was its concern that if the obligation did derive from art 5(1), a prisoner who established a violation of that obligation would in principle be entitled to immediate release [34]-[35] (even if the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 prevented this and as such only a declaration of incompatibility could be obtained). [read post]