Search for: "State v. Harmon"
Results 461 - 480
of 1,117
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2007, 4:07 pm
It recalls that it is for the member States, in the absence of harmonization and to the extent that uncertainties continue to exist in the current state of scientific research, to decide on their intended level of protection of human health and life. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 3:00 am
Medlin v. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
As a general rule, a party does not have a right to appeal a court's interlocutory order or an interlocutory decision. *** See Matter of Carver v State of New York, 26 NY3d 272The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03870.htm [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 7:38 pm
In Jedwards International, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 1:22 pm
Like the court in GRK, Customs and Border Protection looked back to an old case call United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 12:02 pm
R. 193, citing the Architectural Works Protection Copyright Act. [4] Id. [5] Id. [6] See generally Brandir International, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 7:53 am
United States, the Court of International Trade held that under the Harmonized System, pliers are versatile two-handled tools with jaws that pivot to squeeze an object. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:56 am
The Explanatory Notes the Harmonized System, which are not binding on U.S. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
As a general rule, a party does not have a right to appeal a court's interlocutory order or an interlocutory decision. *** See Matter of Carver v State of New York, 26 NY3d 272The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03870.htm [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
As a general rule, a party does not have a right to appeal a court's interlocutory order or an interlocutory decision. *** See Matter of Carver v State of New York, 26 NY3d 272The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03870.htm [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 7:11 am
Regarding proposed Reg BI, SIFMA recommended that the definition of “retail customer” be harmonized with FINRA’s definition because the definition as proposed would result in inconsistent and redundant compliance structures.SIFMA also urged the SEC to incorporate the “reasonable investor” definition of materiality set forth in Basic v. [read post]
14 Oct 2024, 1:38 am
PatentsGif by Riana HarveyKatfriend Federico Caruso (SIB LEX) discussed a recent ruling by the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Syngenta v Sumi Agro. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 7:42 am
Supreme Court's decision in Sereboff v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 7:25 pm
Supreme Court in Spokeo v. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 7:45 am
In Halliburton Co. v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 12:23 pm
Co. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 6:17 am
In Flanzman v. [read post]
20 Oct 2019, 1:59 am
As readers know, this is a profoundly un-harmonized area of the law, and different approaches are in place across different EU Member States. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 10:15 pm
Global harmonization of libel law is neither realistically feasible nor desirable. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 8:53 am
It contains provisions which are circuitous and, at best, difficult to harmonize. [read post]
