Search for: "Does 1 to 10" Results 9081 - 9100 of 42,992
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Under I.C. 6-2.3-1-4, the court determined that ‘utility services for consumption’ simply refers to the removal of sewage and does not give indication of a broader definition. [read post]
8 Mar 2008, 11:41 am
  Most notably, the new law allows a contractor to protest a task order in excess of $10 million to the GAO. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 5:57 pm
One could at least run a fake punt in both situations to keep it interesting.This week, we are 1-0 in calling the winner and 0-1 against the spread.Brigham Young (6.4, 4.5, SoS=113) is favored on the road by 1 1/2 points at TCU (5.0, 3.7, SoS=81). [read post]
27 Dec 2020, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
Bindmans comments as does the Manchester Evening News and Matrix Chambers. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 12:46 am by Rose Hughes
 It does seem that, the closer one looks at the issue of plausibility, the thornier the questions become. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 6:43 pm by David Oxenford
  These fees should be due in August or September of this year, prior to the start of the government’s fiscal year on October 1. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 4:43 pm
Subsection (d)(1), concerning the format of the transcripts, has stylistic changes, as does subsection (d)(2) which includes notification to the court reporter before trial. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 8:20 am
No. 337-TA-428, Order No. 10, Initial Determination (May 4, 2000), citing Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 3:15 am
The figures, released under freedom of information (FOI) laws, reveal that the corporation's top earners are being paid £44m in total... the figure of 339 does not include managers at the BBC's commercial subsidiaries or members of the executive board, who are all exempt from the FOI disclosure... [read post]
  [1] Doe VIII v Exxon Mobil Corporation (DC Cir, 8 July 2011) slip op, page 53 (Rogers J) [read post]
7 Oct 2012, 9:18 pm by Charles Bieneman
Patent 6,560,217, raised a substantial new question of patentability concerning claims 1-3 and 8-10, but that the other three references did not raise substantial new questions of patentability. [read post]