Search for: "Does 1 - 39" Results 641 - 660 of 5,214
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2009, 5:04 am
See also Doe v Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 74 (1995); R. 2:11-3(e)(2). [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 1:41 pm
I have spent much of the past month identifying problems with Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:26 am
In 2001, speeding was said to be the primary reason of fatal motorcycle collisions, which accounted to 39%. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 1:41 pm
I have spent much of the past month identifying problems with Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 9:00 pm
Indeed, baked into the deal is a $3.5 trillion tax increase, yet plan supporters say it does not raise taxes. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 9:34 am by Lyle Roberts
  On that trading day, the company’s stock price increased by 39%. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 8:23 am
First, the law does not assure racial justice, but it can help bring it about. [read post]
16 Jan 2008, 7:24 am
  A draft version of the Senate Judiciary Committee's report on the bill was released earlier this week, and while it does not contain any revised provisions, it does offer a fairly detailed description of the Senate version of the bill as it currently stands. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 8:44 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Therefore, the record does notsupport Mobileye’s attempt to distinguish the prior art. [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 11:52 am
On Wednesday at 1:30 eastern time, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings entitled "The Role of Federally-Funded University Research in the Patent System. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 6:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
Specifically, the tax increase took effect because fiscal year 2020 revenue levels did not exceed fiscal year 2019 levels by more than 5 percent.[11] Tennessee Effective January 1, Tennessee is one of eight states that does not levy any individual income tax at all. [read post]
28 Aug 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
Re s. 1, while the retrospective operation of the no contact provision in s. 161(1) (c) is not a reasonable limit on the s. 11 (i) right, the retrospective operation of the internet prohibition in s. 161(1) (d) is. [read post]