Search for: "Does 1 to 10" Results 6641 - 6660 of 42,982
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Aug 2012, 12:04 pm
  The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Alabama (7), Arkansas (3), California (2), Georgia (1), Illinois (17), Indiana (13), Iowa (7), Kentucky (50), Michigan (6), Minnesota (3), Missouri (9), Mississippi (2), New Jersey (1), North Carolina (3), Ohio (3), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (3), Tennessee (6), Texas (1), and Wisconsin (2). [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am by Donald Dinnie
The court found that s 14(1) does not state to whom an acknowledgment must be made to interrupt prescription – simply that such an acknowledgment must be made by the debtor. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 5:30 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
I, § 10, cl. 1), which provides that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.Relatively simple language has spawned an impairment test that is anything but easy to apply, however. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 10:11 am by Larry
Plaintiff argued that the tuna was minced and not packed in oil, making it classifiable as a prepared meal of 1604.20.05 (10% at the time) or, if minced, that it is not packed in oil.Thus, the threshold question is what exactly does "minced" mean. [read post]
19 May 2016, 7:32 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
’295 patent, col. 1ll. 10–12. [read post]
11 Dec 2022, 6:34 am
  You know what Rumpole does when everyone does one thing- we do the other. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 11:28 am by Steven Koprince
” The GAO noted that FAR 52.212-1(f), which was incorporated in the solicitation, does provide an important exception under which electronically-submitted proposals may be considered even if they would otherwise be deemed late. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 10:34 am by Bridget Crawford
  For those who think the current system for selecting speakers for AALS panels yields the "best" (however defined) speakers, does the school-based data add anything to the analysis? [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 2:31 pm
Shortly after Doe's deposition, the Indiana plaintiffs settled their claims for approximately $260,000, about 10% of the value attorneys for the plaintiffs had put on them.In re Grand Jury Matter #3, supra.The opinion goes on to explain that[t]hereafter the Government empaneled a grand jury to investigate Doe and his business associate. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 8:23 pm by Karen G. Hazzah
Ex parte BuckleyDecided March 10, 2009(Appeal 2007-3617, Appl. [read post]