Search for: "Does 1 - 33"
Results 5481 - 5500
of 6,150
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Sep 2009, 9:56 am
Rakoff rejected a proposed $33 million settlement of allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bank of America Corp. [read post]
13 Sep 2009, 7:24 pm
As such, section 1703(a)(1) also does not require reliance. [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 8:53 am
If the insured does not have its own counsel to protect against a default, the liability insurer risks not being able to contest the insured's alleged liability and plaintiff's damages if it does not retain counsel to defend its insured and a default judgment is taken while the insurer is investigating coverage. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 2:52 am
This development may be particularly significant because many of the subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuits, particularly many of those filed in 2009, assert only claims under the ’33 Act. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 8:25 pm
evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of information received from the inventor,'" id. at 1032-33 (quoting Reese v. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 4:00 pm
Gamecock head coach Steve Spurrier is 7-1-1 against NC State and North Carolina. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 11:49 am
SUPERIOR COURTS, ARTICLE 33. [read post]
30 Aug 2009, 12:45 pm
The specific undertaking given to the County Court in September 2008 was as follows: …not to, whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging any other person:- 1. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 2:38 pm
Sweetening the pot for Couturier, additional incentive agreements were enacted in February 2002, which included allowing for the issuance of up to 93,500 shares to Couturier, and an increase in Couturier's monthly CCA stipend by about 33%. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 3:32 pm
Yet this case presents neither exceptional circumstances nor a departure from controlling law, as the trial court followed one of our most well-established legal principles.We have long held, unequivocally, that a trial court may grant a new trial “in the interests of justice and fairness,”1 and trial and appellate courts have taken us at our word.2 The Court simply changes the rule and jettisons the law upon which the trial court relied. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 11:01 pm
" A club does not "give up on a season" by trading the dead weight of one of the least productive regular players in the National League. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 8:46 pm
First, his Honour explained that s 33 requires that the trade mark be registered unless the Registrar is satisfied that a ground of rejection exists. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 2:12 pm
” [para 33]. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 4:07 am
The basic propositions (all accompanied by supporting precedent) are these: (1) Due process requires that sovereign powers be wielded impartially, Janssen br. at 28-29; (2) Exercise of governmental powers under the influence of private pecuniary considerations violates due process, id. at 29-31; (3) government attorneys are, like judges, bound to exercise their powers to seek justice, and not to pursue personal gain, id. at 31-33; (4) contingency arrangements create the sort of… [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 3:00 am
Section 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act, a/k/a the statutory classic or descriptive fair use trademark defense, does not apply unless the use is "otherwise than as a mark," and the term used is "descriptive of" the accused's goods or services, and it is "used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services" (emphasis added) of the one making the unauthorized use. [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 2:13 pm
If it does, Section 404 applies. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 11:24 pm
The most controversial part of the Libel Legislation is found in sections 33 and 37 (the “Sections”), which concern seditious libel: (1) Any person who a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act with a seditious intention; or b) utters any seditious words; or c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or d) imports any seditious… [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 12:30 am
Or that mens rea does not appear into the picture at all.17. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 12:00 pm
It does not provide any exemption from the derivatives qualification and approval requirements governing the creation and marketing of derivatives in Quebec, and it does not specifically exempt non-Quebec market participants from other ongoing compliance requirements applicable to “dealers” and “advisers” under the QDA as does the OTC Derivatives Exemption. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 6:48 am
So, what does any of this have to do with tax? [read post]
