Search for: "Does 1-35" Results 4361 - 4380 of 9,558
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Feb 2016, 7:09 am by Michael Geist
The exclusion obviously covers existing provincial rules (as well as renewals  and amendments of such measures), but does not address new regulations. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 5:32 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Okanagan Indian Band: [40] … 1. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
Events 2 March 2016, 11 KBW Information Law Conference 2016, Royal College of Surgeons, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE 2 March 2016 Oxford Media Convention, Said Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1 HP. 8 March 2016 Seminar on Surveillance and Human Rights, Senate House, Information Law & Policy Centre. 16 March 2016 Seminar: Openness in Britain 2016 – Where are we now? [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 12:33 pm by Yishai Schwartz
Military Judge James Pohl opens the session at 9:35 am. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 10:08 am by Gregory B. Williams
The general takeaway from the case is as follows: just because one is a prevailing party, does not automatically mean that it will recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 10:08 am by Gregory B. Williams
The general takeaway from the case is as follows: just because one is a prevailing party, does not automatically mean that it will recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 6:57 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
 A-2915/S-2035 (Lagana, McKeon, Ciattarelli/Bateman, Barnes) - "Uniform Trust Code"ARTICLE 1 (3B:31-1 THROUGH 3B:31-12): This article provides the definitions and general provisions to be used throughout the bill, which would largely comprise a new chapter in Title 3B of the New Jersey Statutes. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 8:09 am by Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford, APC
Myth #1: Judges Don’t Order Move-Aways Unless There is a Really Good Reason Until Marriage of Burgess, the seminal California Supreme Court on move-aways, California courts required the burden of proof be upon the moving party to demonstrate that the move was in the best interests of the children. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
The Committee was “disappointed to note” that the Bill does not cover all the intelligence and security Agencies’ intrusive capabilities, and that the draft Bill fails to provide a clear and comprehensive legal framework to govern the use and oversight of investigatory powers. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 2:05 pm by Zoe Bedell, Benjamin Wittes
#aprilfools — New People's Army (@CPPNPA) April 1, 2011 Does the occasional flash of humor suggest that the account is not official? [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 2:05 pm by Zoe Bedell, Benjamin Wittes
#aprilfools — New People's Army (@CPPNPA) April 1, 2011 Does the occasional flash of humor suggest that the account is not official? [read post]