Search for: "State v. E. E. B." Results 421 - 440 of 10,008
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jul 2013, 1:48 pm by WIMS
On Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081). [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 1:06 pm
  The compensation amount under Section 1.61 21(f)(5)(iii) remains unchanged at $215,000.The Code provides that the $1,000,000,000 threshold used to determine whether a multiemployer plan is a systematically important plan under section 432(e)(9)(H)(v)(III)(aa) is adjusted using the cost-of-living adjustment provided under Section 432(e)(9)(H)(v)(III)(bb). [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The method as claimed was regarded as a mix of technical features (step A) and non-technical features relying on the performance of mental activities based on the application of mathematical methods (steps B to E), the latter features being argued by the patentee to be core features of the invention. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 7:53 pm
In the US, it was found in the 1990s that a prohibition on automatic telephone direct marketing that applied to political campaigning was constitutional: the case is Van Bergen v Minnesota 59 F.3d 1541 (8th Circuit CA). [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 7:28 am
Programs for Children with Special Health Care Needs Children with Special Health Needs Branch Department of Health 741 Sunset Avenue Honolulu, HI 96816 Phone: (808) 733-9070 E-mail: plheu@mail.fhsd.health.state.hi.us Hearing Impairments Hawaii Services on Deafness Waikiki Community Center 310 Paoakalani Avenue, Room 201-A Honolulu, HI 96815 Phone: (808) 926-4763 (V/TTY) E-mail: reimers@hsod.org Web: http://www.hsod.org Gallaudet University Regional Center Kapiolani… [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 9:00 pm by Laurent Teyssèdre
Dans un tel cas, la validité d'une demande est affectée par des événements postérieurs à son dépôt. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 2:00 am by Amy Pierce
’s (Pacific Caisson) petition for review of the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the trial court’s judgment that Pacific Caisson did not substantially comply with the requirement that a contractor be licensed while performing work requiring a license, as contemplated by Section 7031(e) of California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Cal. [read post]