Search for: "Does 1-200" Results 121 - 140 of 4,856
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2018, 7:03 am by Dan Carvajal
It requires sales tax collection by out-of-state sellers if they have a minimum of $100,000 in sales or 200 transactions per year in the state. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Claim 1 of the main request does not explicitly reflect the technical effect of “prevention of bone loss”. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 1:12 pm
For starters, Georgia does not have a high risk health insurance pool. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 4:12 pm by David Friedman
Does it misstate the amount of coal consumption implied by RCP 8.5, the size of coal reserves as currently estimated or the reasons to think that current estimates represent a reasonable upper bound? [read post]
13 Aug 2016, 7:47 am by Paul Rosenzweig
" Three quick points: 1) Current Administration response is clearly not working as a deterrent to further leaks. [read post]
1 Dec 2013, 10:41 pm
The submission should have an attached cover page with the following details:1. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 6:39 am by John Jascob
Still, despite the similarities between the two suits, the judge dismissed this latest case without prejudice.The case is No. 1:15-cv-746. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 2:43 pm
The complaints assert causes of action for common law negligence and violation of Labor Law §§200, 240, 241(6) and the Industrial Code of the State of New York 12 NYCRR §23-1.7(b)(1). [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 5:51 pm
Marshall can be sentenced to anywhere between 1 year and 25 years in prison. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 11:48 am by Jack Goldsmith, Amira Mikhail
  By contrast, JCPOA is a political commitment that does not bind the United States under international law and that does not concern a topic traditionally capable of binding unilateral executive branch settlement. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 6:19 am
I didn't know you were allowed to like that much-hated song, but it's #108 on the Top 200 #1 songs of all time. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 4:12 am
 Among the many things that may be gleaned from the judgment of nearly 200 paragraphs (and remember, the copyright infringement and invalidity-via-bad-faith counterclaims are still to come), this Kat notes the following:* it could not be argued that the use of a picture of Betty Boop on the products is within section 11(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 or Article 12(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. [read post]