Search for: "Doe Parties 1-100"
Results 441 - 460
of 4,978
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2011, 8:19 am
In sentencing the defendant to a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for a crack sale, the district court railed against the law, bemoaned the injustice of the sentence, and decried the impact on African Americans of the crack 100:1 ratio. [read post]
5 Sep 2009, 2:17 am
This predicament has prompted various parties to take action to resolve the issue. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 7:39 am
Supp. 2d 1089, 1098-100 (W.D. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 3:00 am
With communication dated 3 July 2018 pursuant to Rule 100(2) EPC the Board gave its preliminary opinion to the respondent's requests to supplement the minutes, which reads as follows:"Request to file a further request:According to Rule 124(1) EPC as relevant legal basis minutes of oral proceedings shall be drawn up containing inter alia the essentials of the oral proceedings and the relevant statements made by the parties. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 8:02 am
A credit may be given from the seller to the borrower on page 1 of the HUD-1 to offset the charge. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 8:02 am
A credit may be given from the seller to the borrower on page 1 of the HUD-1 to offset the charge. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:57 am
This does not exclude the skilled person starting their considerations from any piece of prior art they might be aware of. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 5:13 pm
The “dilemma” faced by the parties is that, whatever the other does, each is theoretically better off reneging on its side of the bargain (dad can take 100% of his property back once the case is dropped; children can be 100% sure dad can never take his property back by keeping the guardianship in place indefinitely after dad signs trust). [read post]
19 May 2017, 3:35 am
How does the CJEU answer both questions? [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 12:48 pm
A consequence of this decision is that no party subject to the Tailoring Rule has standing to challenge its legality. [read post]
4 Apr 2021, 6:42 pm
Rule 56.01 does not itself speak of the need of a moving party to demonstrate impecuniosity. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 2:00 am
Years later, both parties remarried. [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 4:58 am
1. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 3:30 am
Rev. 1 (2015). [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 6:41 am
at 1.) [read post]
12 Sep 2007, 1:25 pm
Anticipated Couvert: $100. [read post]
10 Aug 2018, 8:36 am
Does this Law Apply to Recording of Police Officers? [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 2:47 pm
It is a lengthy decision (almost 100 paragraphs) covering a wide range of vexing issues relating to the private copying exception, with the CJEU handing down eight rulings in response to the six lengthy questionsreferred to it [For an overview of the CJEU preliminary reference procedure, see previous Katpost here]. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:10 am
Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent, the opponent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC and Article 100(a) EPC), lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC).III. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:10 am
Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent, the opponent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC and Article 100(a) EPC), lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC).III. [read post]
