Search for: "In re An. C."
Results 3541 - 3560
of 28,784
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2008, 7:44 am
In re: Operation of the Missouri River System Litigation,, No. 07-1149 (8th Cir. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:22 am
In another scene, they were filming a foosball game and one of the players spontaneously yelled "Everybody dance now" – a line from the C&C Music Factory hit. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 10:55 am
Almost everything we do falls into the no material claims category, but we do put disclosures on everything b/c of journalistic ethics and b/c brands want to say they’re doing it. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 8:48 am
by John C. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 8:56 am
Despite evidence that proved him factually innocent, the judge and prosecutor urged Carrington and his co-counsel to strike a deal to avoid re-opening the trial. [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 2:08 pm
It would seem this week that courts decided more search and seizure cases than any one week I remember. [read post]
10 May 2007, 6:00 am
" This case is not to be confused with the other Supreme Court case called In re Tobacco Cases II, no. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 5:17 pm
Rule 323(c) (eff. [read post]
23 Dec 2012, 9:00 pm
La demanderesse n'avait finalement pas accepté le texte qu'elle avait proposé et requis la délivrance selon la jeu de revendications précédent. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 4:11 pm
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).See IPBiz post "Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness"? [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 8:49 am
§ 41.37(c)(1)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 12, asthese claims were not argued separately.We affirm the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 11:10 am
We’ve touched on this issue before, here, but only briefly, stating:We won’t go any further than to re-emphasize the point that the Twombly/Iqbal requirements apply to every allegation governed by Rule 8(a) – which includes class action allegations, but presumably not affirmative defenses governed by Rule 8(c), which doesn’t contain the same “short and plain statement” language. [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 11:47 am
So if they’re not wiping out certain pathogens, they’re making them stronger, and harder to treat with the meds that have been developed for them. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 6:40 am
Here's the relevant provision:It's unclear if they must store people's stuff when arresting for unpaid warrants based on Class C tickets under HB 1925. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:00 pm
Dans cette affaire, aucune des requêtes soumises avec le mémoire de recours n'est admise dans la procédure, encore et toujours sur le fondement du désormais incontournable Art 12(4) RPCR.Les requêtes soumises en recours ont une portée beaucoup plus large que celles ayant fait l'objet de la décision de révocation en première instance.Suite à une opinion préliminaire négative de la part de la division… [read post]
27 Nov 2020, 3:44 am
" Applicant contended that the owner of the cited registration "provides as a core business a gas station and convenience store whose 'primary business model is to attract customers who primarily want gasoline,' whereas Applicant’s services 'are only restaurant services.'"]In re Sergey Iotko, Serial No. 87498790 (November 25, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 6:45 am
The following terms are defined for purposes of the private fund adviser exemption: "private fund adviser," "qualified client," "qualifying private fund," "3(c)(1) fund," "3(c)(7) fund," and "venture capital fund. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 2:35 pm
C. [read post]
9 Mar 2019, 9:27 am
But really, they're the most detailed description we have of police activities at Texas traffic stops, revealing lots of interesting patterns and trends in addition to (still extant) racial disparities.Indeed, thanks to state Sen. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 3:17 am
Precedential No. 8: TTAB Affirms Section 2(a) Disparagement Refusal of PORNO JESUSSection 2(a) - False Association:Precedential No. 39: TTAB Dismisses 2(a) False Association Claim: MARATHON MONDAY vs.BOSTON MARATHONPrecedential No. 36: TTAB Gives the Boot to Nike's Inadequate Section 2(a) and 2(c) ClaimsPrecedential No. 4: TTAB Affirms 2(a) and 2(c) Refusals of "PRINCESS KATE" and "ROYAL KATE" for ClothingSection 2(c) - Consent to… [read post]
