Search for: "Does 1 - 33"
Results 5621 - 5640
of 6,150
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2009, 2:04 pm
¶¶ 33-34. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 7:42 am
§ 207(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 6:37 pm
(BiOp at 32-33.) [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 6:08 am
" The Report does note that suits with ’33 Act allegations reached "historically high levels" in 2007 and 2008, and that as these cases settle over the next few years, the importance of ’33 Act claims in determining settlement amounts "may increase. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 4:40 pm
" 33 C.F.R. pt. 325 App. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:31 am
• Shares of Citigroup stock are now priced at less than $1/share. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 4:05 pm
You pay (1-x)% of something, and we pay x% of it. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 4:38 am
The first two categories are tightly defined, “particularly acute cases” of additional priority ([33]). [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:07 pm
As Gilbert points out, the question, as Koss posed it, is far too ambiguous: What does having sex "because" a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify? [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 3:01 pm
IF ALLENDE'S BURDEN SHIFTING DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S PROOF AS TO HIS EFFORTS TO PROCURE EMPLOYMENT COMMENSURATE WITH HIS EDUCATION AND JOB EXPERIENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE HE COULD NOT PRODUCE LETTERS THAT AFFIRMATIVELY STATED THAT HE WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A DD-214.WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GRANT RELIEF ON SENTENCING FOR ITS SELF-ADMITTED "GROSS NEGLIGENCE"… [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 5:55 am
Steuben County Supreme Court Justice Peter Bradstreet: (1) conditionally granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint unless plainitiff submitted to another EUO within 60 days of the court's decsion and answered "all material and relevant questions, consistent with this Decision and Order"; (2) granted defendants' motion dismissing the negligence, slander and punitive damages claims; and (3) denied plaintiff's cross motion to serve an amended complaint… [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 4:14 pm
The court also indicated that even if defendant had met the threshold of showing equal burden, “defendant does not meet the specificity requirement of RCFC 33(d)(1)” requiring the responding party to specifically identify the documents which may contain the answers to the interrogatories. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 10:46 am
You can find the case itself here, and for those of you who don’t have an interest - or possibly the time - in reading the entire 33 page opinion, a readers digest overview of the case itself right here. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 7:44 pm
Claims 1-20, 33-36 are confirmed and amended claims 21-32 are allowed. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 11:37 am
Does the court in question have jurisdiction to hear torts, product liability or tax cases? [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 11:34 am
An organization that does not engage “primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of such exempt purposes specified in section 501(c)(3)” does not qualify for federal income tax exemption.[15] While organizations are required to carry the burden of proof in determining their tax-exempt standard, hospitals have essentially written themselves in as a per-se charitable organization, almost rising to the enumerated classification of churches and… [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 10:10 pm
LEXIS 149 (November 3, 2008), released for publication January 13, 2009, certiorari granted, No. 31,430, December 30, 2008: [*31] Third, the State argues that New Mexico's historical treatment of pretext claims does not justify our departure from Whren. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 12:14 pm
"Plaintiff does allege statements that may be demonstrated to be true or false, such as download speeds of up to 20 Mbps and whether upload speed is indeed doubled and downloads are indeed 33% faster. . . . [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 11:56 am
Unlike Rule 23(b)(3), 23(b)(2) does not require that class members receive “opt-out” rights. [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 8:10 am
Because a warrant check does not implicate any area of privacy, it is not a search under sections 12-603.1(f) and 108-1(3), and it is not prohibited by those provisions. [read post]
