Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 20,066
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2017, 8:00 am
The NLRB, however, included this demand in its subpoena (available in full here): If any document responsive to any request herein was withheld from production on the asserted ground that it is privileged, identify and describe the following: (a) author; (b) recipient; (c) date of original document; (d) subject matter of the document; and (e) nature of the privilege asserted. [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 4:07 pm
They filed a stipulation with the court under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 1:46 pm
The competing approaches are A, B, C, D and E. [read post]
31 Dec 1969, 4:00 pm
But that doesn’t mean that there are written opinions elaborating such matters. [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 9:58 am
But the government has already been laying the groundwork to argue that Loper Brigh t does not matter for these cases. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 9:19 am
R. 4:5-1(b)(2). [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 5:41 am
Having missed the fact that the new statute isn’t implicated, the court proceeds to decide that it didn’t matter, for two reasons: first, the court did instruct the jury on the new statute, and secondly, Johnson couldn’t claim the benefit of the statute, since although it had gone into effect just a week before trial, the effective date was five months after the incident, and so it didn’t apply retroactively. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 3:14 am
As a threshold matter, my first advice to you is simply this- forget about it. [read post]
10 Jan 2010, 3:02 pm
As regards the decision T 587/98, which might also be considered (cf. the Guidelines C-VI, 9.1.6), it is noted that this decision, in contrast to T 797/02, is not concerned with cascaded divisional applications, but rather with the problem of double patenting, and that the A <--> A plus B situation referred to in this decision does not prevail in the present case since none of the claims of the parent application as granted includes al1 the features of present claim… [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 1:51 pm
On its face, the argument is mainly (b), but inevitably, in an election campaign where the two parties' voters hate each other so much, those on either side are going to care a lot about the potential truth of (a), not just (b).Yet obviously, no matter what one thinks of Obama as to (b), it's clearly he did pretty well in 2008 and 2012 as to (a). [read post]
7 May 2007, 10:59 am
Reference: ERISA § § 206(d)(3)(B)(ii), 514(a), 514(b)(7); IRC § 414(p)(1)(B) Must a Domestic Relations Order be issued by a state court? [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 9:00 am
There’s more collaboration b/t big content and big tech. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 9:16 am
If context really does matter, then intuition is not necessarily a huge problem. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
(b) Until 1 May 2003 it also held good for appeal proceedings (point [24] below). [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 2:33 pm
But perhaps this vagueness does not matter much, given that the amenmdent would not be legally binding anyway. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 5:00 am
Dilemma b/t calibrating rights properly and trying to make rights clear, and both are parts of the efficiency calculation. [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 2:43 pm
Scott (Cozen O'Connor).The post Characterizing Professor's Tweets as Anti-Semitic Isn't Actionable Libel or Invasion of Privacy appeared first on Reason.com. [read post]
21 Mar 2009, 5:33 am
Why does it matter? [read post]
7 May 2011, 11:01 am
Section I.D.3.1 of the Case Law Book deals with the determination of the closest prior art in general:“… The boards have repeatedly pointed out that the closest prior art for assessing inventive step is normally a prior art document disclosing subject-matter conceived for the same purpose or aiming at the same objective as the claimed invention and having the most relevant technical features in common, i.e. requiring the minimum of structural modifications… [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:00 am
However, "[t]he Board of Trustees is entitled to rely on the advisory opinion of the Medical Board regarding causation" (Matter of Giuliano v New York Fire Dept. [read post]
