Search for: "D. J."
Results 8901 - 8920
of 23,061
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2018, 1:00 am
D. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 1:26 pm
Michael D. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 1:26 pm
Michael D. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 1:26 pm
Michael D. [read post]
31 May 2012, 3:36 am
Arden LJ also disagreed with Kitchin J’s position on the defence under article 81 of the EC Treaty. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 8:30 pm
Além disso, não há dúbia interpretação que gere necessidade de aproveitamento do princípio protetivo nesse caso. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 8:30 pm
Além disso, não há dúbia interpretação que gere necessidade de aproveitamento do princípio protetivo nesse caso. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 9:41 am
Susan D. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 4:44 pm
In an August 24, 2018 opinion in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 2:30 pm
However, Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) specifically prohibits concurrent sentences: “[N]o term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment …” (italics added). [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 4:27 pm
D-2). [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 6:33 pm
By Robert J. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:52 pm
., with McAdams, J., concurring. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 5:46 am
Alexandra D. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 6:17 pm
Cir. 1960) (Fahy, J., dissenting) (“[H]ad a request for en banc hearing of this case been made before the [panel] heard it, or even before the [panel] decided it, such a hearing might reasonably have been granted because of the obvious importance of the case. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 3:40 pm
J-Chem, Inc., 946 F.2d 1131, 1137 (5th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 7:09 am
Aug. 20, 2007) (Jones, J.). [read post]
24 May 2013, 8:12 am
BROWN, J., concurring: Emphasizing the Geneva Convention’s “strong mandatory language,” Op. 8, the panel’s opinion rejected Al Warafi’s proposed “functional” test in favor of the District Court’s “legal conclusion that the identification requirements of Article 24 constitute a sine qua non for protected status under Article 24,” Op. 7. [read post]
26 May 2022, 10:30 am
The draft legislation would also amend FDC Act § 505(j)(5)(D)(i) to remove two of the six current 180-day exclusivity forfeiture provisions – the “failure-to-market” (FDC Act § 505(j)(5)(D)(i)(I)) and “failure-to-obtain-timely-tentative-approval” (FDC Act § 505(j)(5)(D)(i)(IV)) forfeiture provisions – while maintaining the remaining four forfeiture provisions (though renumbering them). [read post]
29 May 2012, 5:59 am
Esta proposta dá poder às partes. [read post]
