Search for: "MATTER OF C M R"
Results 861 - 880
of 2,967
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2017, 2:18 pm
The court viewed the subject matter from 30,000 feet, passing over at 600 mph, without engagement or care. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 2:45 am
C. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am
Court Reporter/Transcriber Timothy R. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am
Court Reporter/Transcriber Timothy R. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 8:12 am
See 29 U.S.C. 203(m) [definition of "wage"], 29 U.S.C. 211(c) [description of record keeping requirements], 29 U.S.C. 216(B) [penalties for failure to comply]. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 5:00 am
C-48-CV-2017-833 (C.P. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 1:51 pm
In a C corporation, the business is owned by individual shareholders. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 8:17 am
§ 202.27(c), (d). [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 8:17 am
§ 202.27(c), (d). [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 4:02 am
m. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 1:55 pm
In other words, “I’m in a 39% tax rate with $200,000 in income. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 7:44 am
Lubetkin; Eric R. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 9:00 pm
What are these changes and why do they matter? [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm
C-14—C-15. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm
Scott R. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 5:00 am
Pa.C.S.A. 57a07(c) and 66 Pa.C.S.A. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:26 am
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187-88 (1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 11:46 am
I’m pleased to say that yesterday, pro bono counsel Kristen T. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 9:07 am
My goal is just to try to figure out what the debate is, rather than come to a particular view, so I’m particularly interested in perspective that disagree with this take about what the debate is. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 2:57 am
When questioned on whether it would be proportionate for ISPs to have to pay these costs, Gill Grassie agreed that the fact that many injunctions will now be pursued against the ISPs (on the basis of the Cartier decision) should be a factor in the Supreme Court’s assessment of proportionality.Anna Carboni commented on changes to the law around dealing in ‘grey goods,’ which can now lead to criminal liability and not merely a civil claim for damages and/or an injunction (see… [read post]
