Search for: "Commitment of E F" Results 441 - 460 of 3,124
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2010, 6:49 pm by clarence
A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 5:10 am by Benjamin Wittes
You write, “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 6:30 am by Matthew Gilpin
Aug. 10, 2012), ECF No. 173.[2] In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012), petition for cert. filed, 81 U.S.L.W. 3090 (U.S. [read post]
6 Nov 2016, 9:59 am by Steve Kalar
Held: “[W]e hold that the district court’s instruction, which comported with the law of most circuits that have addressed this issue, was not erroneous. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 1:40 pm by WIMS
§ 402.12(f), consideration of cumulative effects is permissive, not mandatory. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 12:58 pm
Tippmann Jr. are the true inventors of the '287 Patent;(b) Find that Gerald Tippmann's actions at Citrus World were an experimental use, not a public use or a commercialization, and that the invention was not ready for patenting at that time;(c) Estop Gerald Tippmann from declaring the assertions set forth in his Declaration in the related continuation and divisional applications associated with the '287 Patent and any future related patents that he has assigned to the Tippmann… [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 6:45 am by Guest Blogger
You can reach him by e-mail at Russell.Muirhead at dartmouth.edu [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 5:01 am by Raul "Pete" Pedrozo
On Aug. 4, China’s Hainan Maritime Safety Administration issued a notice to mariners and airmen indicating that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would be conducting military exercises in waters of the South China Sea from Aug. 6 to 10 in an area bounded by the following coordinates: MILITARY TRAINING IN AREA BOUNDED BY THE LINES JOINING:  A: 18-42.60N/110-51.92E; B: 19-45.38N/112-19.00E; C: 18-43.17N/113-30.78E; D: 17-50.92N/114-25.67E; E: 17-25.05N/114-42.07E;… [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 9:36 am by Peter Klose
(f) If this contract is canceled by Purchaser pursuant to subparagraphs 8(d) or (e), neither party shall thereafter have any further rights against, or obligations or liabilities to, the other by reason of this contract, except that the Downpayment shall be promptly refunded to Purchaser and except as set forth in paragraph 27. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 8:36 am by Peter Klose
(f) If this contract is canceled by Purchaser pursuant to subparagraphs 8(d) or (e), neither party shall thereafter have any further rights against, or obligations or liabilities to, the other by reason of this contract, except that the Downpayment shall be promptly refunded to Purchaser and except as set forth in paragraph 27. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 8:36 am by Peter Klose
(f) If this contract is canceled by Purchaser pursuant to subparagraphs 8(d) or (e), neither party shall thereafter have any further rights against, or obligations or liabilities to, the other by reason of this contract, except that the Downpayment shall be promptly refunded to Purchaser and except as set forth in paragraph 27. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 3:10 am by Samuel Goldberg
“Schemes such as this one, in which an individual commits crimes for personal gain at the expense of the public, will not be tolerated. [read post]
20 May 2022, 6:00 am by Florian Mueller
Die Beklagte wird verurteilt,1. es bei Meidung eines für jeden Fall der Zuwiderhandlung fälligen Ordnungsgeldes bis zu 250.000 Euro, ersatzweise Ordnungshaft bis zu 6 Monaten oder Ordnungshaft bis zu 6 Monaten, im Wiederholungsfalle Ordnungshaft bis zu 2 Jahren, wobei die Ordnungshaft am jeweiligen Geschäftsführer der Beklagten zu vollstrecken ist,z u   u n t e r l a s s e n,LTE-fähige Kraftfahrzeuge mit mobilen… [read post]
22 May 2012, 9:03 pm by Charles Bieneman
”  Thus, the individual was subject to personal jurisdiction either because he personally committed torts in Virginia, or as an alter ego of the defendant corporations. [read post]