Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 6221 - 6240
of 15,316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Feb 2013, 10:01 am
Instead, in enacting Section 11-704(b) it limited the requirement to "drivers" of "2 wheeled vehicle[s]." [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 8:43 am
Pro. 12(b)(6). [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 1:15 am
” The consequences for failing to comply with a Schedule 7 power are set out in Paragraph 18(1): A person commits an offence if he— (a)wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule, (b)wilfully contravenes a prohibition imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule, or (c)wilfully obstructs, or seeks to frustrate, a search or examination under or by virtue of this Schedule. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 4:00 am
A work is a United States work under Definition 1(A) if it is first published in the United States; under Definition 1(B) if it is first published simultaneously in the United States and a longer-term party or parties; and under Definition 1(C) if it is published in the United States and a non-treaty party. 17 U.S.C. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 6:05 am
” At the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen discusses the State and Local Legal Center’s amicus brief, as well as the issues at stake more broadly, in next Term’s North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 8:10 am
In Matter of Mia S v Michelle C,, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2022 WL 17480834, 2022 N.Y. [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 1:25 pm
Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, et al. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 2:59 pm
See N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(b); N.J. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 10:06 am
Into the thicket of Washington's economic loss doctrine now comes the 9th Circuit in this recent case certifying a question of state law to the Supreme Court, specifically: May party A (here, SMS, whose rights are asserted in subrogation by [carrier]), who has a contractual right to operate commercially and extensively on property owned by non-party B (here, the City of Seattle), sue party C (here, LTK) in tort for damage to that property, when A (SMS) and… [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 7:00 am
Range v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 10:17 am
§ 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I)). [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 12:40 pm
33 U.S.C. 903 (c). [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 8:38 am
§ 1346(b). [2] Id. at § 2671. [3] See Loving v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 8:38 am
§ 1346(b). [2] Id. at § 2671. [3] See Loving v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:00 am
Marc Hannibal, Eaq., Special Counsel, Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-2624, E-mail address: marc.hannibal@cs.state.ny.usBelow is a brief description of each rule, including the statutory authority for its promulgation; a statement of the justification for the ongoing need for each rule; and the Department of Civil Service’s recommendations for their continuation without modification.1999Amendments to Chapter II of Title 4 of NYCRR… [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 10:41 pm
JPM for pre-BK enhancement of position http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com/uploads/file/Lehman-BK-SDNY-Peck-4-19-12.pdf … B-SDNY's Peck,J. in Lehman v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 12:22 am
§ 154(b)(1)(C). [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 10:41 am
United States, 19-6113, and Bazan v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 4:18 am
Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 2:41 am
Similar to the SPC Regulation in the EU, Australian PTE law states that PTE must be based on the date of the first MA for the drug product (Australian Patents Act 1990, subsection 71(2)(b)). [read post]
