Search for: "Does 1-727" Results 81 - 100 of 393
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Oct 2009, 6:19 pm
United States, 24 F.2d 665, 666-67 (9th Cir.1928) (holding that Rule 41(d), now Rule 41(f)(1)(C), does not invariably require that the copy of the warrant and receipt be served before a search takes place). [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 8:18 am by Kathryn Fenderson Scott
The new ban on texting and driving in Florida went into effect on October 1, 2013. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 12:49 pm by Robert Manchel
However, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance (dept. of labor), may bring a bankruptcy action to deny the discharge of unemployment debt, under the fraud provision of the code, which states as follows: “(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (2) for money,… [read post]
11 Sep 2010, 5:08 pm by PascoDUI
The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 2:37 pm by Eric Caligiuri
  Pfaff’s two-step framework requires that the claimed invention was (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) ready for patenting. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 5:54 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The opposition division's decision was based on a main request and auxiliary request 1 and can be summarised as follows:Late-filed documents D17 to D20 were not admitted into the proceedings.Main request:Claims 1, 21 and 22 of the main request were identical to claims 1, 21 and 22 as granted and read as follows:"1. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 5:50 am by Steve Harms
  Here is Wanda's take on the issue:  There are several provisions in the Bankruptcy Code which address the issue of discharge:  Bankruptcy Code §727 says “The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless – (1) the debtor is not an individual. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 9:36 am by Orin Kerr
Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 15 (1973) (quoting Davis, 394 U.S. at 727).Thus, even if appellant could demonstrate a subjective expectation of privacy in his DNA profile, he nonetheless had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in it because it was used for identification purposes only. [read post]