Search for: "Does 1 - 29"
Results 3501 - 3520
of 13,847
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2013, 11:36 am
What kind of experience does the attorney have? [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 5:30 am
1. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
The upshot: so long as a defendant says what the SEC wants to hear (or says nothing at all), he does not violate the No-Admit-No-Deny Provision. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 10:48 pm
How badly does Risk misinform? [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 9:36 am
Accordingly, we conclude under the plain language of section 136.1(c)(1), a defendant who expressly or impliedly threatens force or violence upon himself or herself does not threaten a "third person" within the meaning of section 136.1(c)(1)…. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 11:22 am
City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1 (“Stop the Millennium”) (my 8/29/19 post on which can be found here).) [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 2:00 am
Under the Small Vehicle Exception, the Section 13(b)(1) exemption does not apply to an employee in any workweek that he performs duties related to the safety of small vehicles, even though his duties may also affect the operational safety of motor vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds—or other vehicles listed in Subsections (a), (b), and (c) above—in the same workweek. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 2:00 am
Under the Small Vehicle Exception, the Section 13(b)(1) exemption does not apply to an employee in any workweek that he performs duties related to the safety of small vehicles, even though his duties may also affect the operational safety of motor vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds—or other vehicles listed in Subsections (a), (b), and (c) above—in the same workweek. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 9:39 am
June 29, 2016): Plaintiff Cedar Valley Exteriors, Inc. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 5:59 am
The Sedona Conference responded on 30 October 2009 with a formal Comment of The Sedona Conference® Working Group 6 to Article 29 Data Protection Working Party Working Document 1/2009.Read Chris’s entire post HERERecently, Jim Daley the Co-Chair of WG6 provided an update on the conversation with the EU and TSC. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 12:00 pm
May (Delaware Law), on March 29, 2024. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 2:25 pm
Although the legislative history does not specifically discuss a time limitation, it is significant that the Legislature chose to continue applying the 29 November 1985 date originally used to allow for consideration of out-of-state convictions. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 11:30 pm
Substantively, they stated that thresholds infringe on the right to equal opportunities for minority parties and weaken democracy (para. 29). [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 1:12 pm
The court outlines that based on Article 29(1) of Regulation No 40/94 it is evident that the Community legislature did not intend to discriminate between marks for goods and marks for services. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 10:13 am
…While ERISA related claims involve subject-matter jurisdiction, 29 U.S.C. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 2:03 pm
The misspelling on the sign is a clue as to #1’s ranking. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 7:06 am
See generally our April 6, 2010 and March 29, 2010 posts for further details on the claim preclusion issue. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 12:17 pm
[1] Ryan Goodman & Derek P. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 7:46 am
www.attorney-ri.com 1-888-RI-LAWLINE [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 3:00 am
Despite this omission, the specifications in Watson were also legally sufficient at the time of trial (the sentence was adjudged on January 29, 2010). [read post]
