Search for: "Initiative Petition No. 314, In re"
Results 21 - 40
of 52
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2018, 2:34 pm
§§314(a), (b) (2006 ed.). [read post]
7 May 2018, 10:25 pm
Procedural HistoryOn February 18, 2016, the Indenture Trustee filed a "Petition for Instructions in the Administration of Trusts Pursuant to Minnesota Statute§ 501C.0201" in Minnesota's Second Judicial District Court, in the County of Ramsey. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 8:00 am
The number of cases initiated is directly tied to the number of special agents that CI has. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 10:23 am
Lee, the statute gives the board unreviewable discretion over the decision whether to institute review; it only bars the board from initiating a proceeding unless it determines that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 11:39 pm
An initial issue concerns which law governs the litigation. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 11:37 am
Second, while the formal parties in a criminal proceeding are the defendant and the State of Texas, In re Amos, 397 S.W.3d 309, 314 (Tex. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm
Cause No. 16-0854) and is one of two petitions for review scheduled to be heard at the University of Houston's law school on Friday, September 15, 2017. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 9:56 am
Tex. 2013) (citing In re Mullin, 433 B.R. 1, 18 (Bankr. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am
California High Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314)? [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 10:00 pm
§314, the Patent Office Director is tasked with determining whether to institute an IPR. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 2:02 pm
Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed.Cir. 2015) (refusing to review Board’s consideration ofobviousness in the final decision despite not being raisedin the initial petition); Achates, 803 F.3d at 658 (refusingto review the Board’s assessment of the time-bar provisionsof § 315(b)); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793F.3d 1268, 1273–74 (Fed. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am
California High Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314)? [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 3:00 am
§ 314(d). [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 2:22 pm
In In re Cuozzo SpeedTechs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 8:29 pm
Natural Res. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 8:29 pm
Natural Res. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
FRANCISCO "FRANK" LOPEZ; from Nueces County; 13th Court of Appeals District (13-11-00757-CV, 443 SW3d 196, 06-27-13) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. - consolidated with - No. 14-0109 IN RE ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY, & WILLIAMS, LLP; from Nueces County; 13th Court of Appeals District (13-11-00757-CV; 13-12-00023-CV, 443 SW3d 196, 06-27-13) The Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 1:52 pm
§ 314(d). [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 10:59 am
California High Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314)? [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
So, blocking orders: fine so long as they're reasonable! [read post]
