Search for: "Does 1-71"
Results 141 - 160
of 2,526
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2019, 4:00 am
In addition, the court found that the Regulations were in conflict with provisions of the Education Law that authorize the Commissioner to prescribe regulations governing the certification of teachers and that require most teachers in charter schools and pre-kindergartens to be certified in the same manner as other public school teachers.Considering the guidelines first established in Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1, the Appellate Division said it agreed with Supreme Court that… [read post]
7 May 2022, 12:38 pm
Pfiel, 197 Ill.2d 60, 70-71, 257 Ill.Dec. 899, 755 N.E.2d 1 (2001) “[W]here the facts and witness credibility are not in dispute, the ultimate question posed by the legal challenge to the trial court’s ruling…is reviewed de novo. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 7:30 pm
Let the interview begin… 1. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 12:02 am
_uacct = "UA-1069395-1"; urchinTracker(); [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 4:30 am
Does Article 22(1)(b) operate to prevent a claimant’s entitlement to the care component of DLA being defeated by a residence requirement imposed by national legislation on a transfer of residence to another member state? [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
”[1.2] In the present case the Examining Division (ED) consisted of Examiners A, B and C (C being the chairman) when it issued the communication pursuant to R 71(3) (intention to grant, see EPO form 2035.4 (sheet 1) dated April 16, 2008, as well as EPO form 2004, sheet R, dated May 21, 2008). [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 8:19 am
Accordingly, rights of first refusal over land can be protected by registration under s. 71(1). [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 2:40 pm
However, the figure does not include travel for reviewers, who come from out of the state and even from overseas. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
Recently, Bexis attended the DRI drug and device committee spring conference. [read post]
16 Aug 2020, 11:45 am
"Does Social Cohesion Solve Forced Migration Riddles? [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 4:51 pm
(Rule 128(1)(e). [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 5:17 am
Dow Corning Corp., 478 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 4:11 am
Auxiliary request 4 was held to be allowable and a Rule 71(3) communication was issued on this basis. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 5:52 am
If the answer to question one (1) above is in the affirmative, does the trial court retain the discretion to grant or deny authorization for public expenditure for any such expert witness [or investigator] fee[s] based upon the trial court's threshold determination [that such services are reasonably necessary to formulate and present a defense]? [read post]
31 May 2022, 9:00 pm
Matter of Steyn v CRTV, LLC, 175 AD3d 1, the clause does not state that it encompasses "any and all disputes" between the parties and it does not explicitly delegate the arbitrability question to an arbitrator and the CBA does not evince a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate the Labor Law claims at issue here. [read post]
31 May 2022, 9:00 pm
Matter of Steyn v CRTV, LLC, 175 AD3d 1, the clause does not state that it encompasses "any and all disputes" between the parties and it does not explicitly delegate the arbitrability question to an arbitrator and the CBA does not evince a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate the Labor Law claims at issue here. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:00 am
So where the receipt is of an overpayment due to a mistaken award, even knowing receipt does not entitle the Secretary of State to seek recovery. [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 8:45 pm
Where an institution or entity does not include the contractual term required, that shall not prevent the resolution authority from applying the powers referred to in Articles 33a, 68, 69, 70 or 71 in relation to that financial contract. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 1:34 pm
If the rightholder does not comply with the order within 4 weeks from the decision of the Tribunal, the user may circumvent the effective technological measure, notwithstanding the provision of section 75 c(1). [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 1:34 pm
If the rightholder does not comply with the order within 4 weeks from the decision of the Tribunal, the user may circumvent the effective technological measure, notwithstanding the provision of section 75 c(1). [read post]
