Search for: "Does 1-41"
Results 3621 - 3640
of 4,619
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2011, 8:49 am
Issue 1: Did the City accept a non-compliant bid? [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 8:49 am
Issue 1: Did the City accept a non-compliant bid? [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
This report leaves more questions than it does provide answers. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 11:41 am
KF240.P76 2008 Deborah Dennison Updated 1/20/11 [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 9:06 am
"), 19% of the test group answered "yes," as did 41% of the control group. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 8:56 am
§ 41-3-613 was contrary to law? [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:00 am
A-41 (the Act) for mistreating cattle on his farm near Stettler, Alberta. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 1:27 am
This is far wider than Hirst (No. 2), and whilst it is not technically binding on the UK, it does provide a clue as to what would happen if either of the government’s recent proposals – limiting the vote to either 1 or 4 year serving prisoners – would be received in the European Court. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
” (T 41/82 [1])Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.To have a look at the file wrapper, click here.NB: This decision was also reported here. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Panama and the specter of climate change. 41 U. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 11:48 am
" Decision as PrecedentialPrededential No. 34: TTAB Affirms Refusal to Register "Beer Glass and Stand" Packaging for Lack of Distinctiveness Fraud: Precedential No. 36: TTAB Refuses to Find Fraudulent Intent Where Applicant Relied on Advice of CounselPrecedential No. 16: Fraud Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss; Facts Pleaded with Sufficient ParticularityPrecedential No. 2: TTAB Okays Fraud Pleading But Denies Summary Judgment on Intent Issue Genericness: Precedential No. 45: TTAB Finds… [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 3:00 am
The appellate court's decision reversing Justice Lebous's order does not address the latter's stated goal of judicial economy, but it does make short work of his two other rationales. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 8:18 pm
In our view, that by itself does not throw any light on the scope of section 41 of the Act. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 11:36 am
” No dictionary we have examined defines “device” to encompass an animal, and section 41-6-1 uses the word “device” in its usual sense. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
Those states were Alaska[1], Arizona[2], Idaho[3], Michigan[4], New York[5], North Dakota[6], and Utah[7]. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
Those states were Alaska[1], Arizona[2], Idaho[3], Michigan[4], New York[5], North Dakota[6], and Utah[7]. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 3:32 pm
” In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41, 51 (Tex. 1998) (emphasis added) (citing Texaco, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 10:50 am
Pp. 41–44. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am
Nota Bene Note 1: In obiter dicta Iacobucci J observed that the tender documents being considered in the case themselves illustrated the “rationale for the tendering process . . . to replace negotiation with competition” (para 41). [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am
Nota Bene Note 1: In obiter dicta Iacobucci J observed that the tender documents being considered in the case themselves illustrated the “rationale for the tendering process . . . to replace negotiation with competition” (para 41). [read post]
