Search for: "In Re US Order Pursuant to Provisions of Rule 6 (E)" Results 61 - 80 of 413
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2021, 6:42 pm by Stephen Page
It is typically used in cases of male infertility, surrogacy or when frozen eggs have been thawed. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 6:42 pm by Stephen Page
It is typically used in cases of male infertility, surrogacy or when frozen eggs have been thawed. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 12:26 am by David Kopel
The exception that swallows the rule Some amicus briefs argue that the "sensitive places" exception to the right to bear arms proves there is no right. [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 5:21 am by Vercammen Law
Relying on the testimony of decedent's attorney, the court found that [e]ach and every provision of the 2015 Will was directed by Ms. [read post]
3 Sep 2021, 2:25 am by INFORRM
The Commission also ruled that freedom of expression can only be restricted pursuant to the Charter when the restriction serves a legitimate purpose and is proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. [read post]
Therefore, to the extent the PWS’s uses of the groundwater had ripened into a prescriptive interest in the available groundwater, the PWS’s water use was transformed from an appropriative use into rights entitled to equivalent priority with the rights of overliers. [read post]
Therefore, to the extent the PWS’s uses of the groundwater had ripened into a prescriptive interest in the available groundwater, the PWS’s water use was transformed from an appropriative use into rights entitled to equivalent priority with the rights of overliers. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The State’s “civil service” has two components: the classified service[5] and the unclassified service.[6]  The Classified Service Let us first consider employment in the classified service as the majority the employees of New York State as an employer and the employees of its political subdivisions serve in positions in the classified service. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The State’s “civil service” has two components: the classified service[5] and the unclassified service.[6]  The Classified Service Let us first consider employment in the classified service as the majority the employees of New York State as an employer and the employees of its political subdivisions serve in positions in the classified service. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 8:21 am by Editor Charlie
COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD (CRB) In re DOCKET NO. 21-CRB-0001-PR-(2023-2027) Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords IV) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re: 37 C.F.R. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 12:35 pm by Vercammen Law
The court’s order, however, should have cited the basis of the court’s authority and made clear the role to be played by the guardian ad litem. [read post]
26 May 2021, 5:10 pm by Daniel Wasserstein
This fee will be adjusted every 5 years pursuant to the Consumer Price Index. [read post]
7 May 2021, 7:07 pm
Wouter Vandenhole; and Jingjing Zhang Pursuant to the Section Registrar’s notification dated 25 March 2021 that the President of the Chamber (Fourth Section) had granted permission under Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights   Duarte Agostinho and others v. [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 7:08 am by Roel van Woudenberg
With reference to Article 15a RPBA (Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal) the appellant pointed out that a lower-ranking provision of the RPBA could not change the content of a higher-ranking provision of the EPC, i.e. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:31 am by Joel R. Brandes
It further found that Family Court erred in vacating a December 2019 amended order of custody and dismissing both of petitioner’s Family Ct Act article 6 petitions. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:27 am by Joel R. Brandes
It further found that Family Court erred in vacating a December 2019 amended order of custody and dismissing both of petitioner’s Family Ct Act article 6 petitions. [read post]
The trial court ruled against the lead agency and developer (Gelfand) based upon CEQA claims and violation of the City’s oak tree ordinance. [read post]
The trial court ruled against the lead agency and developer (Gelfand) based upon CEQA claims and violation of the City’s oak tree ordinance. [read post]