Search for: "Does 1-37" Results 3681 - 3700 of 5,277
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2012, 5:59 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
" Ladder to no where. 37 foot high green monster. [read post]
14 Apr 2012, 11:17 am by Matt C. Bailey
App. 4th 1524, 1531, 1536-37 (2008)  (“Although individual testimony may be relevant to determine whether these policies unduly restrict the ability of drivers as a whole to utilize their on-call time for personal purposes, the legal question to be resolved is not an individual one. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 7:09 pm by Matt C. Bailey
”  See Slip Opinion, at 37; id., at 50 (“we conclude that Wage Order No. 5 imposes no meal timing requirements beyond those in section 512. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 1:13 am by Kevin LaCroix
A substantially similar version of this article was initially published in Issue No. 1 2012 of the Business Law News of the California State Bar. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 3:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151, 153-154; Rodkinson v Haecker, 248 NY 480, 485). [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 5:08 am by INFORRM
(Though there could be a remedy under the Data Protection Act 1998; under the Act ‘personal data’ ‘includes any expression of opinion about the individual’ (s 1(1))). [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 10:50 pm by David Hart QC
Regulation 65(2) makes it clear that regulation 61(1) does not require an authority to assess any implications of a plan or project which would be more appropriately assessed by another authority. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 1:32 pm
Even among the oldest women (85-94 years), the use of radiation decreased only four percentage points, from 37 percent before the study to 33 percent after. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 7:37 pm by Sanjana
Big and Open Data is also being driven by what the authors of The Role of Crowdsourcing for Better Governance in Fragile State Contexts[1] call the philosophy of ‘open-source governance’, that advocates an intellectual link between the principles of the open-source and open-content movements, and basic democratic principles. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
It is clear that the addition of two new independent claims cannot be admissible because this addition, which does not have any effect on the fate of claim 1 that has been challenged, cannot be considered to be a limitation of claim 1 itself in response to a ground for opposition that has been invoked against it. [read post]