Search for: "Does, 1-20" Results 4921 - 4940 of 27,658
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2011, 8:35 am by David Hart QC
ROCing the law: a successful human rights damages claim Filed under: Case comments, Case law, Environment, Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 4:31 am by SHG
This 100-to-1 asymmetry was reduced to 20-to-1 in 2010. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
Importantly Access Copyright does not itself hold any of the copyrights that it manages. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 9:09 am by Rachel Sandler
§102(a)(1) does not cover non-public uses or non-public sales,” and “otherwise available to the public” is an added “modifier . . . restrict[ing] the meaning of the preceding clause. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 9:02 pm by Kevin Kaufman
This does not mean, however, that a state cannot rank in the top 10 while still levying all the major taxes. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 12:12 pm
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed most of the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order [1]largely on Chevron Doctrine deference grounds. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 12:12 pm
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed most of the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order [1]largely on Chevron Doctrine deference grounds. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 8:51 pm
    Legal Reasoning (Newman, Rader, DYK):BackgroundClaim 1 of the '317 patentClaim 1 of the ’317 patent, which is representative of the “integrated circuit card” claims, reads:1. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 2:00 am by Kara OBrien
The Final Rule, like the Proposal, does not name these banks, nor does it provide the threshold global systemic importance scores of the buckets. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 11:00 am
  Recommended Steps for Compliance In preparing for the April 17, 2009, mailing deadline, we recommend employers take the following steps (including employers who are subject to state continuation obligations because they have fewer than 20 employees): 1. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:32 am by CMS
If section 160A does so require, does a failure to give that other such an opportunity render the confiscation order invalid? [read post]