Search for: "MATTER OF C B J B" Results 801 - 820 of 3,069
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jan 2020, 8:25 am by Jacquelyn Greene
The plain language of G.S. 7B-3000(b) states that “All juvenile records shall be withheld from public inspection, and except as provided in this subsection, may be examined only by order of the court. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 2:28 am by Roel van Woudenberg
                  European patent application EP 18  275 163 was filed  with  the  IntellectualProperty Office of the United Kingdom (Article 75(1)(b) EPC) and forwarded tothe European Patent Office (EPO) on 17.10.2018. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 2:25 pm
Because the merger clause in the 2007 Settlement pertains only to covenants “concerning the subject matter hereof,” the court compared the subject matter of the 2006 Covenant to the subject matter of the 2007 Settlement. [read post]
19 Jan 2020, 9:01 pm by News Desk
” “You did not identify and implement a preventive control adequate to significantly minimize or prevent the hazard of the environmental pathogen L. monocytogenes from contaminating RTE produce in your facility, as required by 21 CFR 117.135(a)(1) and (c)(3). [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 4:59 pm by INFORRM
For the protection of children, age-inappropriate online content is described as follows (on p81 of the pdf of the Heads of the Bill): Head 49C – Definition of age inappropriate online content “age inappropriate online content” means material which may be unsuitable for exposure to minors and that they should not normally see or hear and which may impair their development, taking into account the best interests of minors, their evolving capacities and their full array of rights,… [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 2:40 pm by Jessica Kroeze
The decision was taken having regard to the following documentary evidence amongst others:D2: JP 2008-101051 AD2b: certified translation in English of D2D3: DE 10 2005 047 807 A1D5: Paint and Coating Testing Manual, Fourteenth Edition of the Gardner-Sward Handbook, J. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
Family Court Act § 1055 was amended by adding a new subdivision (j). [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 11:56 am by Jonathan Shaub
The article then goes on to list three actions as the basis for that charge: (a) directing the White House to defy a subpoena for documents; (b) directing executive branch agencies and offices to defy subpoenas for documents; and (c) directing current and former executive branch officials “not to cooperate with the Committees” and to defy subpoenas for testimony. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Dec. 17, 2019 Nealon, J.), the court addressed the issue of vicarious liability of a healthcare provider for punitive damages. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 1:58 am
Therefore, the decision could not stand, and the matters were reconsidered.Consent and second-hand salesBoth parties agreed that there was no express consent but the Applicant argued that there was implied consent (relimg on The Sunrider Corp v OHIM EU Case T-203/02 as establishing that implied consent would qualify). [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 11:10 am by Anthony Zaller
Chamber of Commerce As previously written about here, on December 30, 2019, District Judge Kimberly J. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 11:10 am by Anthony Zaller
Chamber of Commerce As previously written about here, on December 30, 2019, District Judge Kimberly J. [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 4:40 am by Ben
Cinemas cOULD now screen Cecil B. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 3:22 am
[para 40]The fact that the colour red would be one of the several essential characteristics does matter, because (1) since the shape was not considered as the sole essential characteristic of the mark, it fundamentally defeated the invalidation grounds under s. 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the 1994 Act on the shape specific exclusions; and (2) it defined the sign at issue as not a 'colour per se' mark.[2] Is the colour ‘red’ defined with sufficient clarity… [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 9:52 am by Rebecca Tushnet
First, proximate harm is a 12(b)(6) issue and not a subject matter jurisdiction issue, per Lexmark. [read post]