Search for: "Does, 1-20"
Results 9581 - 9600
of 27,660
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2008, 5:39 am
CODE § § 13-30-9-1 et seq. [read post]
31 Dec 2000, 4:00 pm
As such, it is not difficult to see why the State takes the position it does in these prosecutions. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 9:23 am
Apr. 20, 2022), ECF No. 266 [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 8:58 am
On March 20, 2018, nearly eight months later, the Board formally adopted findings and conditions of approval consistent with the August 1, 2017 decision. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 11:09 am
LEXIS 39641, at *20 (D. [read post]
15 Nov 2022, 9:16 am
Query what the result should be, under RFRA, if (1) defendant sincerely claims a religious obligation to possess a gun for self-defense (assume he is indeed sincere on that), and (2) defendant's past offense was relatively minor, perhaps on par with the offenses that are excluded by § 921(a)(20)(A). [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 9:24 am
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 19 & 23 anticipated by Hayes; patentability of Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 & 24-26 confirmed – on appeal to the PTO Board. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 6:43 am
Does a win for Verizon really equal a loss for the consumer? [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 4:02 am
Whether Sheff is the same person today that he was 20 years ago is not a useful question for how we should think about our actions and our future selves. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 6:53 am
” Minnesota Statutes § 609.215(1). [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 1:38 pm
Labor proposals 1. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 5:35 am
., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931). [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 8:39 am
(C) On walls of Existing Buildings, by allowing a projection into a required yard, setback or other required open area, provided that the projection does not exceed 10 inches and does not occupy more than 20% of the surface area of the wall (as viewed in elevation). [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 7:08 pm
Its holding is: 1. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 12:35 pm
But the chief justice does not have to play this role, and he is not the final word on matters when he does. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 9:34 pm
Hearing at San Diego, Oct. 1-2, 2007. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 3:12 pm
However, unlike SB 278, AB 1667 does not impose a 20 percent penalty on top of reimbursement of the overpaid benefits. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 9:38 am
It is true that while Article 1 of Schedule 1 refers to 'cross-objection', Article 3 of that Schedule does not refer to cross-objection as such but that in our opinion make no difference. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 5:27 pm
[v] This does not always mean equal fence length. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 5:27 pm
[v] This does not always mean equal fence length. [read post]
