Search for: "Does 1 - 23" Results 1481 - 1500 of 15,473
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2009, 2:54 pm
Department of Justice. - This so called "1 in 5," is a lie. [read post]
22 Jul 2024, 7:00 am by Jacob Sapochnick
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents:  114,200, annual limit, plus any unused first preference numbers: (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents:  77% of the overall second preference limitation; (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents:  23% of the overall second preference limitation. [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 3:22 am by Dennis Crouch
The PTAB offered a split result: Claims 1-15 ineligible; Substitute claims 16-23 eligible. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 3:26 am
LEXIS 1127 (August 23, 2010).* Defendant consented to a search for a gun in her own house. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 9:13 pm
.* Merely asking questions of a passenger in a car after detention of the driver does not imply wrongdoing or an additional detention of the passenger. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 6:14 am
See McCann, 466 F.3d at 622-23 (reversing judgment on the pleadings based on Heck and remanding to give plaintiff an opportunity to clarify ambiguity and steer his complaint to middle ground not barred by Heck). [read post]
14 May 2009, 9:05 pm
Court does not find the officers' testimony that defendant committed a lane change without signaling within 20 seconds of them seeing him as "too good to be true" so as to be necessarily improbable. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 9:02 pm
But, a premises warrant does not authorize an officer to conduct a personal search of individuals found at the premises or a search of the personal effects that individuals are wearing or holding. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 6:08 am
March 23, 2009): Information was being gathered by third parties as in Stevens supra, and relayed to Wicks. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 1:56 pm by Peter J. Stuhldreher, Paul M. Knettel
” The 5th Circuit opined that (1) Harris waived this argument by not raising it to the District Court, and (2) Harris cited no authority that Section 16.070 applied to “any cause of action other than a breach-of-contract claim” and, instead, other courts have held that Section 16.070 does not apply to statutory claims. [read post]
16 May 2010, 2:31 pm by Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson
California Physicians’ Service, (Second District, March 23, 2010) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 182 Cal.App.4th 1601, 2010 WL 1038685, 10 Cal. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 8:31 am by Sascha Abrar
Applying these principles, the court rejected the action for the following reasons: The Customs Enforcement Regulation must be considered as an exhaustive concluding system which shall not be diluted by national unfair competition law; the defendant’s customs application was not limited to the plaintiff but potentially affected third parties and even licensees of the defendant likewise; the defendant had agreed to release the subject scale cars within the 10-days-deadline provided by Art.… [read post]