Search for: "DOES 1-116" Results 441 - 460 of 1,188
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2012, 11:30 am by Deborah DeMott
For a fuller account, see Gerard McMeel, Philosophical foundations of the law of agency, 116 L.Q.R. 387 (2000). [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 4:43 am by Apostolos Anthimos
Still, domestic Greek law does not make the validity of service of an action dependent on the attachment of a translated copy of the action in the language of the State of destination. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 5:24 pm by John Wright
  The Supreme Court supported its adoption of the California approach by stating that, even if NRS Chapter 116 does not compel this approach, it is not inconsistent with the chapter either. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 5:24 pm by John Wright
  The Supreme Court supported its adoption of the California approach by stating that, even if NRS Chapter 116 does not compel this approach, it is not inconsistent with the chapter either. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 8:18 am
" Finally, table walk logic 106 was "discrete" because it was "discrete from the other devices in Figure 1" such as 102 and 116.Applicant's Figure 1GaskinsTurning to Arimilli, the Examiner explained that memory controller 24 was connected to table walk device 78 because the claim did not require a direct connection. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 2:56 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
Compania Internacional De Seguros Del Peru  1988 (1) Lloyd's Rep 116 (CA). [read post]
3 Sep 2021, 1:57 am by Rose Hughes
However, the decision does leave open the question of how broadly "impaired" should be construed. [read post]
16 May 2013, 3:54 pm by Brad Kuhn
Conclusion While successful regulatory takings claims are still infrequent, there does appear to be a judicial shift towards reigning-in overreaching government regulations. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 9:03 am by Howard Knopf
Based upon what I heard on January 22, 2016, it does not appear that the Board was noticeably much more “inquisitorial” than usual. [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Moreover, the application was told that the application could be refused under A 97(1) EPC 1973 (now A 97(2)) if the deficiency was not overcome.[5] According to the Board, the objection pursuant to R 29(2) EPC 1973 (now R 43(2)) against the original claims 1, 18 and 22 was clear and unambiguous. [read post]