Search for: "DOES 1-100, exclusive"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,965
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2009, 8:04 am
The opinion said the Court was moving to clarify its ruling in 2007 allowing judges to depart from the 100-to-1 ratio that punished crack cocaine crimes 100 times more severely than those involving cocaine in powder form. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
Here is the latest decision by the Enlarged Board, on corrections under R 140.The underlying case was as follows:The opposition (filed on September 10, 2004) had been based on the sole ground of added subject-matter (A 100(c)), the only argument being that in claim 1 of the patent the feature “means for initiating (56) a command related to a position of the device data” was not disclosed in the application as filed. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:15 pm
May 5, 2014).Issue[1] Whether "the district court had jurisdiction over . . . [read post]
26 Jul 2015, 3:29 pm
So in 2010 the POA—assuming a POA can get an idea into its head—“believed that P&B had plans to close the entry onto P&B’s property from Route 100 and to use the Sunne Village Lane entrance exclusively. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 3:16 am
He discusses the cases where a plaintiff invokes rules of substantive law in his submission of action and where he or she does not – according to the AG, in the latter scenario, his method does not change fundamentally. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 11:57 am
§ 100(b). [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 10:11 pm
It did not fall within any of the exclusions. [read post]
7 Jul 2005, 10:34 am
The beneficiary designations listed above are by no means exclusive. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 8:29 pm
The annual gift tax exclusion amount also increased to $15,000 per donee per year. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 11:01 am
Claim 1 of the main request before the Board differed from claim 1 as granted, in particular with regard to the definition of the range of water being present. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 4:33 pm
.; 349 NLRB No. 100) Ontario, CA May 14, 2007. [read post]
7 May 2012, 4:03 pm
A fund may rely on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act if its outstanding securities are beneficially owned by not more than 100 persons and it is not making and does not propose to make a public offering of its securities. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:02 pm
So my firm has funded a survey that does answer those questions. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 9:16 am
§ 1 So how does one bridge the gap between antitrust laws and patent laws? [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 11:44 am
What Kinds of Injuries Does FELA Cover? [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 9:10 am
Because there are questions about when and how this doctrine applies, the Fifth Circuit re-certified[1] three questions to the Texas Supreme Court: (1) Does the concurrent cause doctrine apply when non-covered damage (such as wear and tear) does not directly cause the claimed loss; (2) If so, do plaintiffs have to allocate their losses between the covered peril and non-covered perils that plaintiffs contend did not cause the particular loss; and (3) If so, whether… [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 9:05 pm
ENDNOTES [1] Afra Afsharipour & Matthew Jennejohn, Gender and the Social Structure of Exclusion in U.S. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 1:50 pm
The 8-1 defeat to Honduras comes to mind. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 8:31 am
Mistakenly rely on health insurance that does not exist (a growing number of private health insurance plans now have specific auto accident-related exclusions). 4. [read post]
13 May 2024, 8:39 am
cb=1 [read post]
