Search for: "Does 1 - 35" Results 701 - 720 of 9,760
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Magenheimer that the Indiana Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”) does not govern a claim under Indiana Code chapter 35-47-11.1, which prohibits political subdivisions from regulating firearms (“Indiana Firearms Preemption Act” or “IFP Act”). [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 4:32 am
September 27, 2007).* Officer had justification for stopping the defendant who was going 81 in a 35. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 2:40 pm by Gene Quinn
Hansen (representing AMP), the Myriad claim says they want "the isolated DNA of claim 1 wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID No. 1." [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 6:15 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
From within In re Beineke, a case about 35 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 7:05 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
§ 102, on „prima facie obviousness'under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 6:51 am
"Fair (dealing) enough, but you better not think that this does give you carte blanche to do whatever crosses your mind. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 2:02 pm by essex county criminal lawyer
The change in law does not completely do away with the parole ineligibility provision of the school zone statute. [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 5:15 am
Take a look.The BBC has a country by country analysis of the election results and we show below the fairly final but still officially provisional EU Election Results for all 27 Countries who elected 736 Members of Parliament (MEPs) representing 492 million European inhabitants (there are 375 million eligible voters):Provisional 11 June 2009 at 11:26 CEST EPP PES ALDE UEN GREENS/ EFA GUE/ NGL IND/ DEM Others Total BE 6 5 5 0 3 0 0 3… [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 7:48 am by Dennis Crouch
Patent No. 8,762,243 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 6:22 am by Dennis Crouch
Apart from the direct Supreme Court challenge to Helsinn noted above, open questions remain as to (1) does a fully-secret sales offer count to bar a patent under section 102? [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 8:24 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
§ 102, on „prima facie obviousness‟ under 35 U.S.C. [read post]