Search for: "DOES 1-8" Results 7641 - 7660 of 32,312
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2009, 5:30 am
Remember that the Institute of Health number does not include injuries from medical malpractice. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 4:35 am by Broc Romanek
In this regard, we note that American Express raises valid concerns regarding whether the letter documenting the proponent's ownership is "from the 'record' holder" of the proponent's securities, as required by rule 1 4a-8(b)(2)(i). [read post]
22 May 2019, 1:18 am by Tessa Shepperson
It has been suggested that ground 8 be changed to make the rent arrears 4 weeks or 1 month (as opposed to 8 weeks and 2 months as now) but give tenants a longer notice period – say 4 weeks/ 1 month to clear them before proceedings can be issued. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Roberto Gargarella Introduction The Collaborative Constitution is one of the most interesting contributions produced by the legal academia in recent years.[1] It is a clear, easy to read and at the same time profound book, in which its author, Professor Aileen Kavanagh, investigates what is the best and most justified way to protect rights in a democracy. [read post]
16 Nov 2021, 5:20 am by Lydia Estep
A briefing explanation for award provided under FAR Parts 8 or 13 does not extend the deadline to timely file a protest. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 11:58 am by Kalvis Golde
Garland 22-674Issue: Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 8:21 am
Oct 8: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Clean Air Act: Mercury Control Technologies at Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Achieved Substantial Emissions Reductions (GAO-10-47, October 8, 2009). [read post]
20 Jul 2008, 9:54 pm
I think 1, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 are appropriate reasons in some circumstances. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:44 am by Jim Singer
 For example, if a “transition”  application (1) is filed on or after March 16, 2013 and claims priority to an earlier-filed application, and (2) does not claim any new subject matter, then the transition application will still be governed by the first-to-invent rule. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 1:56 pm by Arthur F. Coon
According to the Fifth District, the Supreme Court’s above-quoted language (1) was dicta because Stockton Citizens involved a project approved months before (not after) the NOE was filed, and (2) was not intended to sanction the effectiveness of NOEs filed prior to actual project approval, since the Supreme Court’s opinion also (a) always used the term “facially valid” in the context of “a facially valid and properly filed NOE” (emph. added) and (b) stated:  “Nor… [read post]