Search for: "Does 1 - 20"
Results 5041 - 5060
of 28,853
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2015, 5:00 pm
United States, 7-1-1. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 9:01 am
Apr. 20, 2012), recognizes this right. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
Narrowing down parameters or percentages of ingredients of compositions as used in current claims 1 does not in fact result in different products in terms of chemical structure. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm
In his statement dissenting from the Proposed Rule, Vice Chairman Travis Hill summarized the likely practical procedural effect of these changes: “Given (1) the number of deposit arrangements that may be newly scoped in by the rule, (2) the more subjective standard by which the FDIC will judge applications, and (3) the lack of grandfathering of existing arrangements, I suspect an enormous avalanche of applications may hit the FDIC on day 1, which the agency is completely… [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 1:47 pm
Wright: does Bechtold coordinate with CSA, DIA? [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 9:52 am
” It does so for several reasons, most importantly that HB 20 “does not chill speech; instead, it chills censorship,” and that, even to the extent that HB 20 affects speech, it is only speech that is “at best a form of expressive conduct,” rather than “pure speech. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 3:02 pm
Rule 13d-1(c) - provides that Schedule G can be filed, in lieu of filing Schedule D, within 10 days of the date which the 5% threshold was exceeded if: (i) generally the person has not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect of, changing or influencing the control of the issuer; (ii) the person is not a certain enumerated person; and (iii) the person does not directly or indirectly own 20% or more of the class of equity securities. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 5:03 am
Although Labour does not address the Prevent Duty explicitly, it does promise to update rules surrounding counter-extremism to prevent individuals from being drawn towards terrorist ideology. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 12:48 pm
C-42), the Canadian parody exception reads: ‘fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright’.According to the Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339,para 50, fair dealing requires a two-step test: (1) the dealing must be for one of the purpose set out in the Act; (2) the dealing must be fair. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 12:48 pm
C-42), the Canadian parody exception reads: ‘fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright’.According to the Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339,para 50, fair dealing requires a two-step test: (1) the dealing must be for one of the purpose set out in the Act; (2) the dealing must be fair. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:21 pm
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 20, 2010 Fox v. [read post]
9 Jul 2024, 12:31 pm
Walton, 2014 ONSC 3052 at para. 20; see also Lancia v. [read post]
5 Dec 2023, 9:01 pm
Parties would be invited to provide comments on the phase 1 decision at the outset of the phase 2 process. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 7:40 am
[Does a lawyer who works for a New Jersey firm on non-Florida matters, but who lives in Florida, need to be a member of the Florida Bar?] [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 11:56 am
.; Dec. 20, 2012) This is one of several putative class actions over the information collection practices of apps. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:44 am
§ 1056(d)(1). [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 4:31 am
.The Attorney General does not violate any law in doing so. [read post]
21 Jul 2024, 2:29 am
Could this alignment be considered ‘assembly’, taking into account that Art. 110(1) CDR does not require a strict interpretation (Acacia at para. 41)? [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 7:05 am
FTC * New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?) [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 12:09 am
The Supreme Court began its analysis of “persons acting in concert” by pointing out that Regulation 2(1)(e)(1) does not apply ipso facto to any acquisition of shares. [read post]
