Search for: "IN RE VIOLATION OF RULE 28(C)"
Results 61 - 80
of 892
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2020, 7:17 pm
§ 3582(c)(2). [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 10:54 pm
But Rule 28 is still on the books. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 7:37 am
Right to be heard violations, Art. 112a(2)(c) and 113 EPCA. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 7:37 am
Right to be heard violations, Art. 112a(2)(c) and 113 EPCA. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 4:41 pm
Proc. 23, 28 U. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 5:54 am
P. 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules.I. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 5:54 am
P. 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules.I. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 3:22 am
We discuss the issues raised by the remaining five comments below.Also, in the proposed rule, we stated that these rules would be added to 28 CFR part 549, as ``new'' subpart F. [read post]
1 Jun 2008, 5:55 am
§ 157(c)(1). [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 5:09 am
In Re Robert C. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 8:56 am
WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 In WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018), WHD addressed its views regarding a home health provider’s practice for calculating the wages due to home health aide services that traveled to home health clients’ homes, who were required to travel to different client home locations during the workday. [read post]
30 Dec 2008, 8:42 am
More specifically, the Board ruled that the patent application would be contrary to public order or morality in violation of Art. 53(a) and Rule 28(c) (formerly 23d(c)) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and would violate the EU Biotechnology Directive (98/44/EC). [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:16 am
In decision T 315/03 (relating to what has become Rule 28(1)(d) EPC) theBoard fully acknowledged the Administrative Council’s competence to interpretArticle 53(a) EPC by amendment to the Implementing Regulations based onArticle 33(1)(c) EPC without being limited in this regard by an interpretation ofthe Article set forth in earlier case law.10. [read post]
D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: It’s Not Rocket Science, But It’s Still a Matter of Agency Expertise
27 Mar 2022, 7:33 pm
“So, you’re a rocket scientist? [read post]
26 Apr 2014, 8:31 pm
Alien Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. [read post]
15 May 2017, 9:25 am
See In re C.L.Y., 229 N.C. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 1:55 pm
If § 13-905(C) and § 13-906(C) contradict § 13-907 (C), the two former sections rule. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 1:55 pm
If § 13-905(C) and § 13-906(C) contradict § 13-907 (C), the two former sections rule. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
Those with 14 to 27 points would get Bs, and those with more than 28 points would get Cs. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 8:08 am
Leisner takes a look at the SEC’s new interpretive guidance for these types of exempt offerings and suggests how best practices might evolve for permissible general solicitation activities in future Rule 506(b) private offerings that will not violate the prohibitions of Rule 502(c). [read post]
