Search for: "Does 1 - 38"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 4,956
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2024, 11:23 am
From the 2009 rankings to the 2010 rankings, USC Rossier’s reported acceptance rate dropped 40 percentage points (from 50.7% to 10.5%), and its ranking rose 16 places (from #38 to #22). [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 6:50 pm
United States, the blame for my current headache does not lie in the drafting. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 7:23 am
Interviews were completed by YouGov online and by telephone between 1 April 2014 and 16 May 2014. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 7:45 am
The settlement document was a valid arbitration award within the meaning of s. 38 of the Act. [read post]
4 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
Although the panel was split 2-1, the dissent of Justice Berger agreed with the majority on the interpretation of the law. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The mention of the grant in the Official Journal, which was the relevant act of the EPO in J 38/92, was undoubtedly a step in the proceedings for grant. [read post]
25 Jan 2008, 10:08 am
The current version of Rule 1:38 does not specifically address the broad category of administrative records. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 10:31 am
We conclude that the CFC erred in holding reissue claims 1–22 and 33–38 invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of section 112. [read post]
24 May 2023, 3:55 pm
We addressed this element in Part 1. [read post]
11 Oct 2009, 11:01 pm
The Kansas State game is winnable for the Aggies; the Tech game does not appear to be. [read post]
10 Feb 2022, 10:30 am
Employers Are Not Authorized to Require that Employees Exhaust Leave for Reasons 1 through 7 before Using Leave for Reason 8 The bill does not require that employees exhaust SPSL for reasons 1 through 7 before the employee uses SPSL for reason 8.[27] 4. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:15 am
Strong et al., McCormick on Evidence § 337 at 415, § 343 at 437-38 (5th ed. 1999); C. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 4:26 pm
Normal 0 0 1 2970 16934 The University of Chicago 141 33 20796 11.1282 0 0 0 I. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:59 am
Code § 38-77-250.I do not do construction law, but if you do, you need to check out S.C. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 9:39 pm
§ 1295(a)(1). [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 12:25 pm
Since the first condition was not satisfied, the first ground was rejected.Second ground: Article 8(1)(b)Chanel argued that the sign filed by Huawei should also have been refused under Article 8(1)(b). [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 9:08 am
It argued, inter alia, that the signs Consist exclusively of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result (Sec. 3(2) no. 2 German Trade Mark Act (GTMA), implementing Art. 4(1)(e)(ii) of the EU Trade Mark Directive (‘EUTMD’)); Consist exclusively of shapes which give substantial value to the goods (Sec. 3(2) no. 3 GTMA, implementing Art. 4(1)(e)(iii) EUTMD); Lack distinctiveness (Sec. 8(2) no. 1 GTMA, implementing Art. 4(1)(b) EUTMD); and Are… [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
Does this court have jurisdiction to quash the letters? [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 12:01 pm
Specter does. [read post]
9 Mar 2019, 1:00 am
As of August 2018, SED estimated a lag time to begin its architectural and engineering reviews as two to four weeks and 38 to 40 weeks, respectively. [read post]
