Search for: "DOES I-X"
Results 4921 - 4940
of 7,290
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2011, 10:47 pm
This position has been supported by the Children's Guardian although he does not agree to X being named. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 3:34 pm
And while it's good news that only companies presenting explicit content will be able to buy .xxx URLs, Larson says that "if my brand does get registered as a .xxx domain name, I can be assured it's going be related to content I don't want associated with my brand. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 6:28 am
Does someone on your staff say this? [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 5:32 am
So, does her answer of "No," while being correct, merit any points? [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 10:49 pm
The facts of this case are reminiscent of law exam question.Edward X. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 6:00 am
In January 2011, Robert X. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 1:49 pm
He also noted that while the plain view doctrine “permits the seizure of” evidence in plain view, it “does not authorized a warrantless search of the item for concealed evidence. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 7:05 am
I doubt this. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 9:19 pm
Baniak to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.Edward X. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
Here is another textbook example of a disclaimer that does not fulfil the requirements established in G 1/03.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the opposed patent.The Board found the (main) request I to lack novelty over document D1 (prior art under A 54(3)(4)), and auxiliary requests II and III not to comply with A 123(2). [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 5:58 am
This post does not necessarily reflect my thoughts and feelings nor do they represent any views held by Forbes. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 3:22 pm
I was looking at the 2011 OJD Base Fines Instructions and Charts and the 8 x 10 color glossies with circles and arrows and the word U-TURNS caught my eye. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 12:14 pm
On the contentions urged, two questions arise for consideration: (i) What is the procedure to be followed by a court in implementing section 89 and Order 10 Rule 1A of the Code? [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 10:05 am
And you wonder why I think this might constitute an assault on innovation? [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 10:01 am
I heard somew [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 9:16 am
These are topics I cover briefly with students who take seminar classes from me, but I thought they might be useful to a broader audience. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 6:12 am
We’ll see whether it does. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 9:22 pm
This type of case preparation does little to instill confidence (as a mediator I end up spending most of my time in these cases trying to make the attorney not look bad) and probably ensures an unhappy, or non-repeat, customer. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 11:06 am
Rapprochement x. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 8:31 am
” Important to the court’s determination that the ‘283 patent does not satisfy § 101 is the fact that it does not put the knowledge gained from the “comparing” step into “practical use. [read post]
