Search for: "In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10" Results 781 - 800 of 5,483
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2019, 4:11 am by Diane Tweedlie
In a communication attached thereto it expressed its provisional and non-binding view that, in the absence of a procedural violation, the appeal fee could not be reimbursed under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC. [read post]
27 May 2020, 1:49 pm by Russell A. Miller
These claimants alleged violations of Article 10(1) (telecommunications privacy) and Article 5(1) (press freedom) of the Basic Law. [read post]
27 May 2020, 1:49 pm by Russell A. Miller
These claimants alleged violations of Article 10(1) (telecommunications privacy) and Article 5(1) (press freedom) of the Basic Law. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 9:15 pm by Peter Mahler
Bucaria, in Matter of Gold (Hazardous Elimination Corp.), Short Form Order, Index No. 017735/10 (Sup Ct Nassau County Sept. 21, 2012), adds to the list of cases denying requests to revoke an election to purchase in Section 1118 valuation proceedings. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 3:21 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 7:25 pm
Section 210 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-10) is amended by striking subsection (c). [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 7:13 pm by Stephen Halbrook
In Heller, the Court examined the Second Amendment's language to determine that as a matter of plain text "arms" includes (but is not limited to) all firearms. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 4:47 am
 This is a change from the Proposed Rules which would have required disclosure of such decision either in the Form 10-Q or Form 10-K. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 12:46 pm by David Cosgrove
SEC also found that by way of Ottimo’s Form U4 being misleading and inaccurate, he violated FINRA Rules 1122 and NASD IM-1000-1. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 1:16 pm by Brian Shiffrin
David Juergens, after taking a thirteen year hiatus from working on criminal appeals, obtained reversals of two convictions for a single client, one for burglary after a trial and the other for criminal possession of a weapon after a guilty plea (see, People v Williams,2010 NY Slip Op 09663 [Appeal number 1, 4th Dept 12/30/10] and People v Williams,2010 NY Slip Op 09663 [Appeal number 2, 4th Dept 12/30/10]). [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
First, he tried--mostly unsuccessfully--to say that Gingles step 1 and the subsequent cases already contain or at least do not rule out a requirement of race-neutrality in the construction of the plaintiffs' alternative map. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 9:51 am by Russell DeMott
You can change your payment schedule by amending your Chapter 13 plan. [read post]
8 May 2023, 4:00 am by Administrator
This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Background, Rationale and Dissent The classification of a deposit as “brokered” is significant because (1) banks deemed less than well capitalized (including because of exam ratings) generally cannot pursue or rollover such deposits, (2) such deposits can result in higher bank expenses, and (3) as a prudential matter, they can be viewed by regulators as less stable than nonbrokered deposits, thus causing higher examination scrutiny. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 7:03 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
These cases have dried up somewhat as the courts have broadly applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Garcetti v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 9:59 pm by Hank Fasthoff
Filed under: Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, First Amendment, Literary Materials, Trademark Dilution Act Tagged: Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, First Amendment [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 3:45 am by Broc Romanek
But the Court in Free Enterprise otherwise left intact Reorganization Plan Number 10 of 1950 (15 Fed. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 4:45 pm by NL
If the law needs to be reviewed with a view to possible amendment, that is not a matter for the Supreme Court, whose proper constitutional function is to declare and apply the law. [read post]