Search for: "DOES I-X"
Results 3621 - 3640
of 7,399
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2014, 9:31 am
By contrast, the fact that I've decided (internally) that the law doesn't really say X doesn't matter. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 3:37 am
I would like to thank Paul, Dave and Aaron for the willingness to publish their article on my site. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 8:04 pm
One day the law is X and the next it is Y. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 8:04 pm
One day the law is X and the next it is Y. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 5:07 pm
In re ePlus, Inc., 540 Fed App’x 998 (Fed. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 3:08 pm
Glenn Beck does not impress me as a free speech hero. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 8:38 am
That is, claim 1 does not positively recite any step of analyzing cost. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
If method X, for example, can operate by killing a fertilized egg or embryo, then a person who believes that life begins at conception would consider method X to be an abortifacient. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 10:14 am
I mean, obviously there’s every reason to assume she does; what’s not to like? [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:00 am
What's more, applying the exclusio unius presumption (that when Congress specifies X we can assume that it meant not to specify X elsewhere) to a statute as long and complicated as the ACA -- and one that did not go through the usual linguistic "clean up" process in Conference (as I wrote here) does a disservice to textualism and all those who have defended it over the years--turning it into a wooden unreasonable formalism … [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 4:36 am
I hate clutter. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:32 am
The important thing is that it does not refer to the outcome of the case, such as whether the patent is valid and whether it is infringed by a particular product.Res judicata is about the outcome of a case, and refers to the principle that, once a matter has been decided as between two parties in a decision that is final (ie not open to further appeal), neither party can re-litigate the same matter again. [read post]
20 Jul 2014, 2:29 pm
Edward X. [read post]
19 Jul 2014, 11:27 pm
The plaintiff claims that X is unlawful, so he asks the court to preliminarily enjoin X. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:33 am
And I tend to share that assessment. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
And, finally, how about: “I join the Opinion of the Court on the understanding that it does not say X”? [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
Even a signed affidavit saying, “I do not hold Religious Belief X,” might not be enough, because a person’s religious beliefs can change at any moment. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 5:01 am
For example, if taxable income of up to $50,000 is taxed at 20 percent, and taxable income above $50,000 is taxed at 30 percent, a person with taxable income of $60,000 would be subject to a tax liability of $13,000 ($50,000 x .20, plus $10,000 x .30). [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 8:42 pm
I try to take this perspective with my writing process, trying to answer the question of why does topic “X” matter and how can I use it in my own professional or personal life? [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 11:32 am
"The complainant here does the latter. [read post]
