Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 7401 - 7420
of 9,560
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
Full Reports 1. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 4:11 pm
IPXL comes up:The district court held that Statistical Interface claims 1, 2, and 83 of the ’893 patent are indefinite under IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 9:13 am
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 956, 961, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 243 [inaccurate hours on wage statements].) [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
Gary Herbert (R), the bill will take effect July 1. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 1:21 am
Last night, 35 legal bloggers, tweeters and journalists descended on 1 Crown Office Row chambers to debate the future of legal blogging. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:05 pm
With respect to Appellants’ argument that Franchere does not teach the “wells for containing a fluid sample therein” feature required by claims 1, 12, 27, and 35, Appellants’ argumennt is unpersuasive of reversible error because it fails to address the Examiner’s stated case, which is based on, inter alia, Franchere’s test tubes and the corresponding openings in Franchere’s modular units, as meeting the “wells”… [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
Consequently, s. 13 does not apply to convictions before the BHA Disciplinary Tribunal [49]. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 2:35 pm
How much debt contributes to your decision where to workLaw firmGovernmentIn-housePublic interestOtherUnemployed or under-employedMore than any other factor40%23%36%25%39%55%About the same as other factors38%44%37%44%35%35%Very little11%18%14%17%13%5%Not at all12%15%13%14%14%5% To find out which law firms can help pay down your debt faster by offering top-of-the-market salaries and bonuses, visit the Career Center. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 4:09 am
What does that mean in this context? [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm
(B) LIMITATION BASED ON AMOUNT OF TAX - In the case of a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the credit allowed under subpart A for any taxable year (determined after application of paragraph (1)) by reason of subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the excess of -- (i) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over (ii) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A (other than this section) and section 27… [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 3:36 pm
This transfer from Al to Al and Jefferson as joint tenants does not constitute a change in ownership. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 1:14 pm
In 2011, the weekly maximum for PPD is $792 and the weekly minimum is $35. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 3:35 am
New York courts have ruled that the internal disclosure of stigmatizing reasons for the discharge of a probationer to agency administrators did not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a "name-clearing hearing" was not required because of such intra-agency communications.** See also of Johnston v Kelly, 35 AD3d 297, where the court said “the sole purpose of a name-clearing hearing is to afford the employee an opportunity to prove that the stigmatizing… [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 1:31 pm
OIG said, "Of the 35 AAI reports we reviewed, from three EPA regions, none contained all the required documentation elements. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 6:14 pm
Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 50, fn. 15, reported here, that “[W]e give the DLSE’s current enforcement policies [as stated in the DLSE’s enforcement manual] no deference because they were not adopted in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 8:00 am
What does it say about their arrogance that they always seem to think that they can get away with it? [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 5:59 am
, but if we did, preemption is up 1-0. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 9:30 pm
When it does, it can't help but have an effect on future cases. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 4:41 pm
According to the ID, the constructions to all but the last element of claim 1 were disputed. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 1:57 pm
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 50 fn 15 (2010) which held that the policies in the DLSE enforcement manual were not entitled to deference because they were not adopted in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. [read post]
