Search for: "Does 1 - 33"
Results 3841 - 3860
of 6,151
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2013, 10:02 pm
The nine marijuana plants ranged from 1 foot to 2.5 feet in height. [read post]
24 May 2013, 9:09 am
From the reasons McLachlin C.J. wrote for the Court. [1] The main question on this appeal is whether a trial judge’s decision should be set aside because his reasons for judgment incorporated large portions of the plaintiffs’ submissions. [read post]
23 May 2013, 1:22 pm
H.R. 3 would approve the pipeline by fiat, lock out the public, eliminate the President's authority to balance competing interests, and stop federal agencies from ensuring that if the project does go forward, we do it as safely as possible. [read post]
22 May 2013, 4:30 am
§9-3-33. [read post]
20 May 2013, 6:00 am
Distinctions Concerning the Target of Surveillance and/or His Interlocutors 1. [read post]
19 May 2013, 10:26 pm
That's 100% subject to review, not 1% or 2%. [read post]
18 May 2013, 10:55 pm
The fact that FDA inspects less than 1 percent of imported seafood, added to a high percentage of food fraud that appears to be happening at the docks, does not make one feel warm and fuzzy about the safety of fish in general. [read post]
17 May 2013, 12:04 pm
The Court, however, made no separate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). [read post]
16 May 2013, 2:09 pm
Id. at *31-33.So there’s no duty.There also was no causation.Even if there could have been a duty (which there wasn’t), the publishers simply acted as publishers. [read post]
14 May 2013, 3:24 am
A recently published directory does provide significant help in that regard. [read post]
14 May 2013, 12:22 am
” (Claim 33 of the ‘479 patent, quoted by Lourie p. 23). [read post]
12 May 2013, 6:05 am
Thankful for 33 days. [read post]
10 May 2013, 1:21 pm
Moreover, EPA's program guidance does not clearly define each type of OCA deferral or specify in detail the documentation EPA regions should have to support their decisions on OCA deferrals. [read post]
5 May 2013, 12:15 pm
Litig., No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL 1535, 2006 WL 4507859, *33 (N.D. [read post]
5 May 2013, 11:01 am
(c) Section 33: The film producers argue that the proviso of Section 33(1) violates Article 19(1)(c) which safeguards right to join (and right not to joint) an association. [read post]
3 May 2013, 8:53 am
At the conclusion of the pre-litigation settlement only 29% is deducted for attorney fees, not 33 1/3%. [read post]
2 May 2013, 4:42 pm
(iii) Section 33: The amendments to the proviso of Section 33(1) required that the entire business of issuing copyright licences for soundtracks incorporated in cinematograph works, be administered only through a copyright society. [read post]
2 May 2013, 9:23 am
Litig., No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL 1535, 2006 WL 4507859, *33 n.78 (N.D. [read post]
2 May 2013, 3:12 am
It doen't need to justify the higher 33 1/3% fee to pay for this expensive advertising. [read post]
1 May 2013, 12:50 pm
We defer to the EPA's reasonable construction of the statute, as adopted by the EAB, that BACT does not apply to mobile support vessels unattached to the drillship." [read post]
