Search for: "1-8 Doe" Results 6101 - 6120 of 32,310
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2011, 7:25 pm by Rich
The Supreme Court agreed today with CIGNA that the lower courts had incorrectly used section (a)(1)(B) to reform CIGNA's benefit plan. [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 12:15 am by Anna Maria Stein
On 4th February 2020 (the decision is available in Dutch), the EUIPO examiner refused the application due to lack of distinctiveness pursuant to art. 7 (1)(b) of the EUTMR. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 4:33 am
And that should bother you as much as it does us. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 4:00 am
" In contrast, a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law §3813(1) is not a condition precedent to an Article 78 proceeding seeking to vindicate a public interest [Matter of Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Bd. of Coop. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 4:58 am by Woodrow Pollack
Enviro Granulation, LLC., Case No. 8:13-CV-3004 (M.D. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 2:44 pm
The Court of Appeals held that wrongful conduct of one of the parents in causing conception does not in any way alter the parental obligation to support the child. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 5:11 am
Does Size Matter? [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 9:04 am by Marcel Pemsel
The application form in Germany does not provide a box for ‘olfactory mark’. [read post]
17 May 2017, 12:09 pm by Lovechilde
"(And let's not forget the prima facie case that Trump has violated Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, i.e., the “Emoluments Clause,” based on allegations that he is profiting from the Trump Organizations business dealings with foreign government )The tepid responses from Republican leadership is -- to use their language -- "troubling" (Susan Collins) and "disturbing" (John McCain). [read post]
5 Nov 2012, 3:24 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
It is not necessary to decide the correctness of Sukanya Holdings as it arose under Section 8 which is not the case here. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
  Much of the research he presents "has been ignored or overlooked in the existing scholarship on Section Three, and most of it does not appear in any of the briefs in Trump v. [read post]