Search for: "Does 1-58"
Results 621 - 640
of 2,951
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2008, 7:10 am
Harris.Saturday, January 58:30-10:15 a.m. [read post]
3 May 2019, 2:12 pm
The 58-year-old driver was arrested. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 9:30 pm
 The Current Rule 57(10) will become Rule 14-1(10) and it reads identically to the current rule so the precedents developed under Rule 57(10) regarding costs should continue to assist litigants after July 1, 2010. [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:06 pm
No matter how the court of appeals disposes of the case on remand, the case may well end up before the supreme court a second time. [1]/ 58 Tex. [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:06 pm
No matter how the court of appeals disposes of the case on remand, the case may well end up before the supreme court a second time. [1]/ 58 Tex. [read post]
9 Oct 2012, 7:10 am
State, 58 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1952)). [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 10:34 am
A fact admitted in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act need not be proved. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 9:44 pm
” Is it sufficient to advise “we have entered into a CFA” or “our client has the benefit of an ATE policy” or does it trigger the full requirements under CPD 19.4? [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 12:09 pm
In 2008, the top 1% paid 38% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% paid 58%. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 12:23 am
†Chicago-Kent Law Review, 58, 59-88. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 1:48 pm
 Id. at 54-58. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 4:36 am
Companies will need to decide whether to narrow the language to just "executive" officers (ISS uses the term "executives") and whether to define "significant" (ISS does not). [read post]
14 Dec 2022, 4:00 pm
Rul. 59-58, 1959-1 C.B. 17 [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:35 am
§ 2000bb-1. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 11:40 am
I looked for e-filed US trademark applications (1(a) and 1(b)). [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 6:02 am
Because the contract in this case is within the § 1 exemption, the FAA does not apply, and we consequently lack jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 2:30 am
The ECJ judgment Requirements for compensation – Question 1 (1) Does the award of compensation under Article 82 of [the GDPR] also require, in addition to infringement of provisions of the GDPR, that an applicant must have suffered harm, or is the infringement of provisions of the GDPR in itself sufficient for the award of compensation? [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 2:28 am
On 25.10.2019, the applicant submitted further argumentation in support of accepting a machine as the inventor, arguing Rule 19(1) EPC does not require that the inventor is a human and explaining that the purpose of Rule 19(1) EPC is to properly identify the inventor. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 2:05 pm
And, the government does not have to prove all of the elements of the CPPA if the offense is charged under Clauses 1 and 2. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
54 Section 929P(a)(1) of the Act.55 Section 929P(a)(2) of the Act.56 Section 929P(a)(3) of the Act.57 Section 929P(a)(4) of the Act.58 Morrison v. [read post]
