Search for: "REITER v. STATE"
Results 21 - 40
of 4,497
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2024, 4:54 pm
v. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
More recently, we reiterated the same principle in Matter of Rosen v First Manhattan Bank (84 NY2d 856, 857 [1994]). [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
More recently, we reiterated the same principle in Matter of Rosen v First Manhattan Bank (84 NY2d 856, 857 [1994]). [read post]
23 May 2024, 3:01 am
Fisher v. [read post]
21 May 2024, 2:45 am
In 10x Genomics v Curio (UPC_CFI_463/2023), the Düsseldorf Local Division reiterated its position in Ortovox v Mammut (UPC_CFI_452/2023) that statements made by the patentee in the patent granting procedure are not, by law, admissible material for interpretation and are generally not be taken into account in the context of patent interpretation. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:40 am
By contrast, Paul-Emile’s theory might suggest a revisionist reading of Gonzales v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:06 am
Shugerman, SEC v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am
Respondent reiterated this directive in an email dated June 27, 2023. [read post]
20 May 2024, 6:00 am
Respondent reiterated this directive in an email dated June 27, 2023. [read post]
19 May 2024, 11:28 am
" The Supreme Court of Indiana recently reiterated that rule in its February decision in Spells v. [read post]
16 May 2024, 10:30 pm
Regarding the principle of equivalence, the ECJ reiterated that Article 6(1) UCTD ranks equally with domestic rules of public policy. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:51 am
Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:58 am
., v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:38 am
See Muldrow v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 7:38 am
This was further affirmed by the Court of Appeal, which expressed the same views and reiterated the need for judicial assistance in enforcing foreign judgments and rulings in Kenya. [read post]
5 May 2024, 7:44 pm
Supreme Court’s 1884 opinion in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. [read post]
5 May 2024, 10:26 am
The briefing cites to Naterra International, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 3:12 pm
E. coli O157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2] respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and… [read post]