Search for: "CJ E" Results 81 - 100 of 199
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2013, 1:03 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
He was 1/8th Cherokee, which by the CJ’s logic is almost zero Cherokee. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 5:33 am by Stephen Page
Under subsection (2), in addition, the issuing authority must consider the following: (a) any family law orders in force in relation to the defendant, or any pending applications for family law orders in relation to the defendant, of which the issuing authority has been informed; (b) the accommodation needs of the protected person; (c) the defendant's criminal record as defined in the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act ; (d) the defendant's previous conduct whether in relation to the protected… [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:42 pm by News Desk
The health alert is being initiated after routine sampling by WSDA found toxin-producing E. coli in a sample of raw cream. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 4:33 pm by Bill Marler
The health alert is being initiated after routine sampling by WSDA found toxin-producing E. coli in a sample of raw cream. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 3:58 pm by Bill Marler
Some strains of E. coli produce a toxin called Shiga toxin that can lead to severe illness. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 3:13 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
& Others, Civil Appeal No. 7134 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, dated September 28, 2012 before SH Kapadia, CJ, AK Patnaik & Swatanter Kumar, JJ. to consider an important question related to reference of disputes to arbitrations arising out of a composite transaction involving several agreements and several affiliates of the parties. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:15 am by war
The Full Court (Keane CJ, Jagot and Yates JJ) has affirmed Gordon J’s ruling that the appellants infringed the registered trade marks in Australia for LONSDALE, but not for the reasons you, or the trial judge, might think. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 2:10 pm by familoo
*Cough* We now all have to use the CJS secure email (unless we are one of the the great unwashed self represented). [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 9:01 am by Indian Legal Program
 In order to ensure your application is received please make certain it is sent to the correct e-mail address. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 8:27 am by Joe Consumer
  Here what CJ&D observed back then. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 8:27 am by Joe Consumer
  Here what CJ&D observed back then. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 1:25 pm by Rumpole
Miami Herald: Is there an "e" in Brown? [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 10:06 pm by Walter Olson
” As soon as the text has completed the editorial process, just e-publish the damn thing immediately. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 9:26 am by Marc DeGirolami
I have a somewhat narrow question for the informed readership about one of the arguments in CJ Roberts's opinion in NFIB about the nature of the "exaction" at issue.  The Chief says this at p. 43: "[W]e need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:23 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
” The “shall” in that case was contained in an introductory provision—a recital that provided for no legal consequences—which said that “[e]ach State shall be responsible for providing . . . for the disposal of . . . low-level radioactive waste. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 7:23 am by Bill Raftery
Cross-posted at Court Technology Bulletin I mentioned two weeks ago the e-filing fees situation in South Carolina. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 8:14 am by Bill Raftery
The bill, which was unanimously approved by the House on April 24 and the Senate on May 31, would have amended the state’s schedule of fees and costs to be collected by clerks of court (8-21-310) to include a new section that reads for filing court documents by electronic means from an integrated electronic filing (e-filing) system owned and operated by the South Carolina Judicial Department in an amount set by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and all fees must be… [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 9:24 am by Douglas
Assim, não é incomum um funcionário receber R$21 mil, como foi o caso do assessor-chefe CJ-3, do ministro 19, os R$25,8 mil do assessor-chefe CJ-3 do ministro 22, ou, ainda, em setembro, o assessor chefe CJ-3 do do desembargador 1 recebeu R$39 mil (seria cômico se não fosse trágico: até parece identificação do seriado “Agente 86”). [read post]