Search for: "SEALED PETITIONER 1"
Results 61 - 80
of 275
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2020, 5:02 am
These documents were labeled "SUBPOENA" and were marked with the Office's official seal. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 12:36 pm
" As Petitioners point out, if competent evidence shows that a woman is in that position, nothing prevents her from seeking as-applied relief.} [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 6:20 am
But a conviction for this felony offense cannot be expunged or sealed. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 8:10 am
He was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment and appealed. (1) A stop based on a traffic offense may not be extended beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of the stop absent reasonable suspicion of an offense or consent pursuant to Rodriguez. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 11:16 am
Starting July 1, 2019, those who wished to file for expungement were given a better opportunity to work towards having a true second chance at life. [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 7:33 am
The petitioner appealed. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 1:30 am
Waiting Period After the petitioner has filed for expungement or sealing and notified the four concerned parties, the waiting period for an objection has doubled. [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 5:45 am
Motion to seal denied. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 5:50 pm
The court also added: [1.] [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 5:01 am
Specific Facts Upon Which Petitioner Relies Eugene Volokh is Gary T. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 3:29 pm
The same was true of the EIR’s treatment of petitioners’ very specifically articulated proposals of leakless and low-leak technology and equipment, which included bellows and diaphragm valves, graphite-packed control valves and hermetically-sealed valves and flanges, and sealless pumps such as diaphragm pumps, canned motor pumps, and magnetic drive pumps. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 1:52 pm
Sentence for a Class 1, 2, 3 Felony or a Level 1 Drug Felony. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 10:47 am
Specifically, “[s[ection 315(b) states that ‘[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner … is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 10:47 am
Specifically, “[s[ection 315(b) states that ‘[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner … is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 11:29 am
”: An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner … is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Texas Court Rejects Once-Suspended Doctor's Lawsuit Over Reporting of the Suspension
16 Jul 2019, 5:01 am
The Agreed Order also requires Day (1) to limit his medical practice to a group or institutional setting, (2) to continue the practice of having at least one other health care professional in the room when seeing or treating patients, (3) to keep a log of his patient interactions, (4) to have the other health care professional contemporaneously initial the log entries, and (5) to provide a copy of the Agreed Order to all health care entities with which he affiliates or seeks to affiliate. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
The Administrative Law Judge found, upon the hearing, that a preponderance of the evidence showed that the petitioner committed a category three act of neglect (see Social Services Law §§493[3][a][i]; [4][c]; 494[1][a]; 14 NYCRR 624.5[j][1][i]; 700.4-700.5). [read post]
31 May 2019, 6:24 am
Art. 55.01(a)(2)(B), the petitioner must wait for the applicable statute of limitations (“SOL”) period to expire before the petitioner is eligible to exert his right to expunction. [read post]
17 May 2019, 4:53 pm
Petitioners present two questions in their petition before judgment (which they file because an appeal to the Federal Circuit would not advance the development of the law): (1) whether the C.I.T. erroneously found Algonquin to be controlling; and (2) whether Section 232 is facially unconstitutionally because its congressional delegation lacks an intelligible principle. [read post]
17 May 2019, 4:53 pm
Petitioners present two questions in their petition before judgment (which they file because an appeal to the Federal Circuit would not advance the development of the law): (1) whether the C.I.T. erroneously found Algonquin to be controlling; and (2) whether Section 232 is facially unconstitutionally because its congressional delegation lacks an intelligible principle. [read post]
