Search for: "MATTER OF C A"
Results 7601 - 7620
of 36,786
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2021, 4:37 am
C-34 (Competition Act). [read post]
17 May 2012, 11:32 am
It’s just a matter of time. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 12:35 am
Well-known examples of this are the GS Media/Sanoma (C-160/15), The Pirate Bay I (C-610/15) and Red Bull/The Bulldog (C-206/15) rulings and the pending Heks’nkaas case (C-310/17). [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 4:05 am
” In the event the Nassau County Civil Service Commission has adopted a rule addressing the ability of an individual to withdraw his or her resignation, presumably the Appellate Division would apply that rule in resolving the matter. * 4 NYCRR 5.3(c) provides that a resignation of a civil service employee, which must be in writing, "may not be withdrawn, cancelled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing… [read post]
26 Nov 2021, 6:58 am
C-34. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 6:28 am
The potential consequence of not complying with 216.6(c) is administrative sanction, not defense preclusion. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 2:24 pm
C-34, which will come into force on June 23, 2023. [read post]
7 Mar 2010, 5:24 pm
I think it's a stretch, at best, to conclude "as a matter of law," that the uses are similar. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 11:06 pm
In the words of the panel " Article 31(3)(c) does not refer to "one or more parties" [nor] to "the parties to a dispute ". [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 1:48 pm
Or Wikileaks, for that matter. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 8:30 am
C-34 and related compliance guidance. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:00 am
The European Court of Justice, in its Judgment in joined cases C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08, and C-320/08 for a preliminary ruling issued on 18 March 2010, held that EU directives and general principles do not preclude national legislation which imposes prior implementation of an out-of-court settlement procedure, provided that that procedure does not result in a decision which is binding on the parties, that it does not cause a substantial delay for the purposes… [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 9:13 am
C-34 (Competition Act), Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 7:03 am
The patent owner conceded that steps (A)-(C) were in the prior art, so the only issue on appeal was regarding step (D). [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 4:05 am
” In the event the Nassau County Civil Service Commission has adopted a rule addressing the ability of an individual to withdraw his or her resignation, presumably the Appellate Division would apply that rule in resolving the matter. * 4 NYCRR 5.3(c) provides that a resignation of a civil service employee, which must be in writing, "may not be withdrawn, cancelled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing… [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 12:33 am
In fact, this document mentioned "pyrolysis oil", which did not contain triglycerides, as these did not withstand a pyrolysis treatment, which was normally carried out at 500°C or higher.- Pyrolysis was not done with triglyceride-type feeds such as used cooking oils or waste animal fat, but it was rather carried out on the more stable woody/lignocellulosic biomass or algae.- It had to be concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 involved an inventive step.Reasons… [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 5:28 am
Hearsay statements are out-of-court assertions offered as proof for the truth of the matters asserted. [read post]
29 Mar 2022, 12:28 pm
§ 1512(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 2:30 pm
“Where the child is presently covered by health insurance benefits, the court shall direct in the order of support that such coverage be maintained” (Domestic Relations Law § 240[c][1]). [read post]
29 Oct 2021, 4:15 am
I understand that resolving disputes about family law matters is trying and capable of triggering strong emotional responses, especially when a dispute concerns children and decisions about how they are parented. [read post]
