Search for: "Does 1-58" Results 1301 - 1320 of 2,966
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2021, 7:07 pm
” Residents of a Contracting Party are clearly within the “jurisdiction” of that Contracting Party for purposes of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 3:43 am by Matthew Flinn
Voyias then appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, which under section 58 of the FOIA effectively takes place as a complete re-hearing of the matter. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 4:00 am by Sean Vanderfluit
Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 6:39 am
  The employees who are working a shift during which the meeting occurs have two options for getting to the weekly sales meeting:  (1) take public transportation; or (2) carpool with the store manager. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 3:31 am by Susan Brenner
He stated that the first message's property file listed the `modified’ time as July 15, 2009 at 12:51:58 p.m.; the second message's `modified’ date was July 15 at 12:52:24 p.m.; the third message had a `modified’ time of July 17 at 1:29:12 p.m.; and the fourth message had a `modified’ time of July 17 at 2:10:38 p.m. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 4:06 am by Rebecca Tushnet
” 116 respondents (58%) identified “Ball Park” as the responsible party. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 6:28 pm by Jeff Gittins
Currently, under Section 18-1-15, cities of the first class can exercise this extraterritorial jurisdiction over the entire applicable watershed. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:25 pm by Kurt R. Karst
  Footnote 21 states, “We note that “IVDs offered as LDTs” does not include IVDs manufactured or used outside of a laboratory, including collection devices. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 2:50 pm
Tennessee 9-4 181OTHERS RECEIVING VOTESHawaii 110, Nebraska 58, Maryland 24, South Florida 17, Texas A&M 10, Georgia Tech 8, Kentucky 1, San Jose State 1.DROPPED FROM RANKINGSTexas A&M 21, Nebraska 22.Complete RankingsUSA Today Final Rankings 1. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 5:52 am by Stephen Pitel
  This is a remarkable interpretation of section 4, one which would see many other provisions about subject matter jurisdiction instead read as though they addressed territorial jurisdiction (which she does in footnote 1 in para 109). [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 11:00 pm by Giesela Ruehl
That these are determinative factors for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) does not exclude them from consideration under 4(3). [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 10:43 am by INFORRM
Even as a matter of English, the word “exceptional” does not appear to add a great deal to “compelling”. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 6:32 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
See ’110 patent, col. 3, ll. 45-58; col. 4, ll. 12-20. [read post]