Search for: "Does 1-205"
Results 141 - 160
of 1,000
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2016, 2:10 pm
Powell, 205 A.D.2d 561, 562 [2d Dept 1994]). [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 9:44 am
Call us at our main number of 205-879-2447; 2. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:11 pm
Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:44 pm
Ah, but Washington County doesn't have a Convention Center or a minor league baseball stadium with luxury boxes to pay for, as Portland does. [read post]
3 Aug 2019, 12:10 pm
The word “certain” does not mean certain to last for the duration of the term. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:35 pm
In that case, the district court for northern Illinois specifically said Illinois law does not impose a statute of limitations on arbitration awards. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 12:01 am
Just because HRCP Rule 72 does not mention cross-appeals does not mean they are not allowed. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:54 am
The statute that causes the revocation is 625 ILCS 5/6-205(a)(2). [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 12:44 am
It does not require an intent beyond that just stated. [read post]
7 Aug 2007, 7:59 am
The statute does provide for different penalties depending on whether (1) the person is a resident of Arkansas with a valid state driver's license, (2) the person is a resident of Arkansas without a valid state driver's license, and (3) the person is not a resident of Arkansas. [read post]
12 May 2022, 9:35 am
Great Neck Saw Mfrs., No. 1:20-CV-00402, 2021 WL 4618586 (E.D. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 8:05 pm
Even fund advisers who would be exempt from registration because they advise private funds with assets under $150 million or solely advise venture capital funds are still subject to the prohibition, because Section 205 exempts only those advisers exempt from registration under Section 203(b), which does not include the small fund adviser exemption and the venture capital adviser exemption. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 8:05 pm
Even fund advisers who would be exempt from registration because they advise private funds with assets under $150 million or solely advise venture capital funds are still subject to the prohibition, because Section 205 exempts only those advisers exempt from registration under Section 203(b), which does not include the small fund adviser exemption and the venture capital adviser exemption. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 8:21 pm
Remote Solution, Co., 398 F.3d 205, 207 (2d Cir. 2005); Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
1)], in opposition [proceedings], does the applicant, as the defendant to the opposition, have the right to invoke prior rights which could constitute prior rights to the earlier trademark used as a prior right in the opposition? [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 7:06 am
I find that it does not. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 7:54 pm
I find that it does not. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 2:03 pm
Marlayne, Inc., 83 N.J. 460, 469 (1980); Dewey, 109 N.J. at 205. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 7:14 am
Call now. 1. [read post]
1 May 2013, 8:00 am
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding: Although providing IHSS-funded care does not constitute employment for all purposes, the County and the Authority were Guerrero's joint employers for FLSA purposes because: (1) "their power over the employment relationship by virtue of their control over the purse strings was substantial"; (2) her wages were determined and paid by the state and its agents, the County and the Authority; (3) the County and the Authority maintained employment… [read post]
