Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D" Results 4741 - 4760 of 10,368
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Oct 2017, 8:03 am by Ad Law Defense
§ 101.65(d)(2)(i)(F), to make a “healthy” claim, the food must (1) be “’Low fat’ as defined in § 101.62(b)(2),” (2) be “’Low [in] saturated fat’ as defined in § 101.62(c)(2),” and (3) contain “[a]t least 10 percent of the RDI or the DRV per RA of one or more of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein or fiber. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 8:03 am by Ad Law Defense
§ 101.65(d)(2)(i)(F), to make a “healthy” claim, the food must (1) be “’Low fat’ as defined in § 101.62(b)(2),” (2) be “’Low [in] saturated fat’ as defined in § 101.62(c)(2),” and (3) contain “[a]t least 10 percent of the RDI or the DRV per RA of one or more of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein or fiber. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 6:16 pm
In connection with counts 3 through 5, appellant admitted suffering two prior drunk driving convictions within the meaning of section 23566, subdivisions (b) and (c) and Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (d). [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 1:58 pm
I have heard; Your Grace hath ta’en great pains to qualify His rigorous course; but since he stands obdurate, And that no lawful means can carry me Out of his envy’s reach, I do oppose My patience to his fury, and am arm’d To suffer with a quietness of spirit The very tyranny and rage of his. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 12:11 am
Evans and Lawrence v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 5:43 am by Gerard Magliocca
§§ 907 b, 907 d (2004); Catherine Fisk & Erwin Chemerinsky, The Filibuster, 49 Stan. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 9:12 am by Comunicaciones_MJ
Se une a la lista junto a Holanda, Bélgica, Luxemburgo y Canadá. [read post]
29 Nov 2020, 4:00 am by Administrator
Intitulé : Procureur général du Canada c. [read post]
20 Sep 2024, 4:00 am by Alan Macek
The Federal Court of Appeal had earlier described some principles for assessing whether a claim was ambiguous: a) the claim may be invalid if the language used is avoidably ambiguous or obscure; b) but not invalid it the phrase can be interpreted using grammatical rules and common sense; c) if it impossible to determine its scope it is ambiguous than it is ambiguous; but d) not invalid if it is simply not concision and lucidity. [read post]