Search for: "Does 1-96"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 2,165
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 May 2012, 2:35 pm
Mainville J.A. noted that subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act prohibits “any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”. [read post]
2 May 2012, 7:00 am
PAUL JOHNSON, POWDER RIVER, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants and Appellees. [read post]
1 May 2012, 1:31 pm
Robinson, 227 S.W.3d 86, 96 (Tex. [read post]
1 May 2012, 7:15 am
These have increased more than fivefold since 1999, creating a debt load that’s approaching a trillion dollars, with students borrowing $96 billion more every year to pay for their educations. [read post]
1 May 2012, 1:02 am
Only 23% of plaintiff fee awards were $1 million or higher, while 44 percent were at or under $500,000 or under. [read post]
29 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
The retroactive effect of a decision dismissing the appeal does not alter the pending status of the application. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 1:39 pm
Lucas, 332 Mass. 594, 595-96 (1955). [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
However, the board does not consider that the content of I1 was divulged to the public by the fact that the notary public had seen it before the filing date. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 4:30 am
§ 1332(d)(1)(B) and § 1453(a). [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 3:06 pm
The premise underlying the doctrine of mutual mistake is that "the agreement as expressed, in some material respect, does not represent the meeting of the minds of the parties". [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 4:54 am
1.? [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 11:01 am
As [the amendment] only corresponds to a syntactical redrafting of the claims, which does not lead to any substantial modification, there is, according to the established case law of the Boards of appeal, no reason to [raise] any new objection beyond A 100 EPC 1973 (see, for instance, T 367/96 [6.2], T 381/02 [2.3.7], T 1855/07 [2.2-4]). [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:58 am
The premise underlying the doctrine of mutual mistake is that "the agreement as expressed, in some material respect, does not represent the meeting of the minds of the parties". [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 4:10 am
§ 1. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 11:51 pm
” This relates to the rule, repeatedly highlighted by the CJEU, that in cases where the EU has intended to exhaustively harmonize an area, recourse to Article 36 TFEU is no longer justified (see, e.g., Case 5/77, at 35, Case C-1/96, at 47 and 56). [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 9:13 pm
The riposte to my argument takes three tracks: 1) we are telling the truth (so stop calling us liars!) [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 5:45 pm
Nies, 96 A.D.2d 166; 468 N.Y.S.2d 278; 1983 N.Y.App.Div Lexis 20313. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 6:30 am
See Haygood, 17 So. 3d at 895-96. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 1:03 pm
I’d love to hear someone advance the argument that everything Congress does is rational. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 8:38 pm
Rev. 1 (1943). [read post]
