Search for: "In re E.G."
Results 641 - 660
of 13,814
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2013, 12:09 am
We all have needs: e.g. to take care of our children and to enjoy our lives. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 8:29 pm
(If you're a cardholder, pay your bills). [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 4:41 pm
We hope to bring together scholars with varied perspectives (e.g., critical race theory, class critical theory, feminist legal theory, law and economics, law and society) across fields (e.g., criminal system, education, employment, family, health, immigration, property, tax) and with work relevant to many diverse identities (e.g., age, class, disability, national origin, race, sex, sexuality) to build bridges and to generate new ideas in the area of Equality Law. [read post]
5 Apr 2020, 11:18 am
Generally speaking, the rule does not apply to the registered person’s personal passive investments (e.g., buying away) and activities conducted on behalf of a member firm’s affiliate (e.g., work for an affiliated investment advisory firm or insurance arm). [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 1:30 pm
See, e.g., Loughrin v. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 5:59 pm
See, e.g., IPR 606 Final Written Decision, at *14–15. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 9:12 pm
In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1971).Commercial success is also not apparent where there is demand for a product that fills a need, and the claimed product merely satisfies that need, e.g., for more versatile designs for removable lampshade covers. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 11:52 am
It doesn't have to be a "school" for anyone other than a single kid (e.g., your own). [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 3:38 am
Applicant, on the other hand, asserted that JACKMAN does not sound like JAKEMANS.Although many surnames end in "man," so do many first names (e.g., Norman Vincent Peale , Herman Melville, Sherman Lollar). [read post]
15 Nov 2022, 9:04 am
On an issue that's spit the district courts in the Ninth Circuit, it holds that you're allowed to serve the defendants through their registered agent in the Trademark Office rather than going through the (total pain in the butt) Hague Convention.By contrast, if you're not one of those people, you might be at least marginally interested in footnote five of the opinion. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 2:08 pm
To put it differently: If you're entitled to "just compensation" because someone (e.g., a city) has taken your property, is your takings claim against that entity constitutionally entitled to super-priority over all other claims, secured as well as unsecured? [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 11:21 pm
On reflection and re-reflection and re-re-reflection etc., I do believe that Zadeh has given us important tools for radically better ways of thinking about fuzzy thinking. [read post]
26 Apr 2014, 11:00 am
However, the Fourth Appellate District's recent decision in In re the Marriage of Mark and Rhonda Finby finally shed light on this issue. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 2:38 pm
Is the same also true for her; e.g., is she the owner beyond a reasonable doubt? [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 1:15 pm
” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. [read post]
10 May 2007, 9:46 am
Some words of advice to first-year associates not-yet-admitted legal interns working at large law firms (e.g., White & Case, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan): If you're ever seized by the desire to send a firm-wide email, JUST SAY NO. [read post]
14 May 2011, 1:45 pm
According to Mr Zemlin, Linux today not only dominates the supercomputer market, embedded systems (28% as compared to 17% of MS Windows), mobile devices (by e.g. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 2:39 am
See, e.g., In re Gould Paper Corp., 5 USPQ2d 811 (CCPA 1978) [SCREENWIPE generic for computer screen wipes]. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 4:40 pm
He did not spell out what characteristics of the claimant (e.g. age etc.) are legitimately to be attributed to the reasonable person – a problem which has beset the use of the hypothetical person in many disparate areas. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 12:37 pm
And since when has the standard been that you're required to establish evidence from an "objective authority" (e.g., a government official) before something that's facially obvious gets accepted as true? [read post]
