Search for: "DOES 1-100, exclusive"
Results 1201 - 1220
of 1,965
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2014, 6:12 am
Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d at 421, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1. . . . [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 11:27 am
If your $100 pledge gets you a “free” tote, you haven’t actually paid $100 for the tote. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 2:41 pm
But occasionally, someone does take an interest in cleaning up the codes. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 2:07 pm
This Court had upheld such an exclusion in Lehman v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
A few general conclusions can be advanced about this mode of reasoning: 1. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 5:18 am
Nor does every defendant and every case justify the kind of research we do. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 6:06 pm
However, the record did not contain information explaining the numerical significance of 100+ results. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 4:00 pm
The Act proposes the following: (1) Increased Salary Basis. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 6:46 pm
These categories are as follows: 1. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 11:29 am
However, this total does not count the additional cost of providing coverage to the 1/3 of the 8 million new people who signed up for coverage who bought coverage in states that ran their own marketplaces, including California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 4:45 am
Relevant factors: (1) advertising expenditures, (2) consumer studies linking the dress to the source, (3) unsolicited media coverage of the product, (4) sales success, (5) attempts to plagiarize the dress, and (6) length and exclusivity of the trade dress’s use. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 12:51 pm
A drug detection dog—why does border patrol have drug sniffing dogs, you ask? [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 7:35 am
See CRPC Rule 1-100 and its implied exclusion of non-lawyers not employed/contracted by lawyers. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 6:50 am
I have been considering current efforts to implement the U.N. [read post]
23 May 2014, 2:26 pm
A disclaimer is a statement within the application wherein the Applicant does not claim the exclusive right to use a specific term or element apart from the mark as shown. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:15 am
As to the character of the Clippers, there does not appear to be a true 'form of title' applicable, per Marriage of Brooks & Robinson (2008) 169 CA4th 176, 86 CR3d 624. [read post]
18 May 2014, 5:30 am
-> Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2014-05-10: Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2014-05-… http://t.co/IRU9VIpZb2 -> Student answer on IP exam: mother is author of daughter's painting because she learned something at daughter 's art classes -> IP exam: mother and daughter joint author of painting because they had a common design, pleasing grandparents -> Mihály Ficsor on Svensson and communicate to the public… [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:00 am
It states that a cafeteria plan that does not contain written terms that allow changes of election upon change in legal marital status generally would need to be amended before a same-sex couple could be allowed to make an election change. [read post]
13 May 2014, 10:39 am
Let’s start with claim 1, which recites: 1. [read post]
12 May 2014, 3:11 pm
In the federal criminal justice system, mandatory minimums are used almost exclusively for high-level drug traffickers who have trafficked in large quantities of hard drugs. [read post]
