Search for: "DOES 2-25" Results 4541 - 4560 of 16,496
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2014, 11:26 am by J. Ross Pepper
The Delaware Block Method requires that the court consider three different methods used to value shares: (1) the market value method; (2) the asset value method; and (3) the earnings value method. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 3:16 am
" (pp. 24-25) (See my discussion below.)The authors also choose to compare oppressions. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 10:25 am
The Act therefore stands.However BT etc were partially successful in relation to sharing the costs of the filesharing system to be established - the cost sharing SI made under the Act proposed a 75:25 split between the copyright holders and the ISPs; it now seems ISPs wil not be required to pay 25% of the cosst of establishing the appeals body but will still have to pay in relation to "internal costs" ie sending letters and identifying filesharers.A key point will be… [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 11:08 pm by admin
  That has since changed to eight years and Deuteronomy does not approve. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 7:35 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Here, the court finds that the record does not support the People's theory. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 9:40 am by Colby Pastre
This relationship is important, although it does not always hold true. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 9:41 pm by Stu Ellis
Furthermore, since ACRE payments are limited to 25 percent of the cap (the 90 percent), ACRE only protects the individual farmer from revenue losses between 67.5 (90 - 25 percent of 90) and 90 percent of the farm guaranteed revenue. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 5:33 am
Does our salvation lie in monetary policy? [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:16 am by Amy Howe
Indeed, the government notes, Fischer does not identify any conduct to which Section 1512(c)(1) would apply but not Section 1512(c)(2). [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:44 am by John Elwood
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In its interlocutory decision T 1068/07 of 25 June 2010, Board 3.3.08 referred the following question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA): Does a disclaimer infringe A 123(2) if its subject-matter was disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in the application as filed? [read post]