Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B." Results 4421 - 4440 of 15,305
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
  The family home was found to be in a state ‘unfit for habitation by children’ and the police exercised their powers of protection under the Children Act 1989, s 46 and removed all eight children from the parents’ care. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:24 am by Nico Cordes
In the present case, the notice of opposition stated that the opposition challenged the granted patent in its entirety and was based on the grounds for opposition under Article 100(a) EPC in combination with Articles 54 and 56 EPC, and under Article 100(b) EPC. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 6:56 pm by Joseph Koncelik
Wetlands- any wetlands that are adjacent to a) traditional navigable waterways; b) tributaries to traditional navigable waters; c) federally protected ditches; d) federally protected lakes and ponds; and e) federally protected impoundments. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 6:56 pm by Joseph Koncelik
Wetlands- any wetlands that are adjacent to a) traditional navigable waterways; b) tributaries to traditional navigable waters; c) federally protected ditches; d) federally protected lakes and ponds; and e) federally protected impoundments. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
An organization has “associational” standing to bring claims on behalf of its members if “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:01 pm by Matthew Scott Johnson
Henry’s article Chapter 11 Zombies is cited in the following article: Melissa B. [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 11:30 pm by Guido Paola
" However, it contained no detailed analysis of the prior art on file nor any objection to novelty or inventive step, but rather stated that document D1 should be identified in the description as background art according to Rule 42(1)(b) EPC.IV. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 9:29 am by Anthony O'Rourke
 § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence” as defined by 18 U.S.C. [read post]