Search for: "Does 1-96" Results 141 - 160 of 2,134
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2011, 2:49 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The continuous representation doctrine does not contemplate such intermittent representation (see Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 9; Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d at 167-168; Loft Corp. v Porco, 283 AD2d 556). [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 3:24 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The continuous representation doctrine does not contemplate such intermittent representation (see Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 9; Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d at 167-168; Loft Corp. v Porco, 283 AD2d 556). [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 5:58 am by Jamie Markham
App. 569 (2005)—which sometimes leads to frustration when a defendant who does not satisfy the terms of the agreement ultimately declines to plead guilty. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 5:34 am by Eleonora Rosati
As a result, the court ordered RCS to pay EUR 50,000 in damages.In 2017, the Milan Court of Appeal substantially upheld the decision at first instance, also considering that the notoriety of Rivera (a defence recognized under the already mentioned Article 97 of the Italian Copyright Act) could not be relied upon by RCS when publishing images of him in a private setting.A final appeal of RCS to the Supreme Court followed, only concerning the lawfulness of the unauthorized publication of photographs… [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 4:09 am by John Hopkins
Is it even remotely reasonable to suppose that a corporation would pay $1 million it does not owe? [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The implicit disclosure means no more than the clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned (see T 823/96). [3.2] It is matter of fact that the application as filed does not explicitly disclose the step of making an array of spatially segregated organometallic metal ligand compounds (step (a) of the method of claim 1). [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 12:31 am by NRF Digital Team
  Finding that section 96 of the FMA does not introduce any element of finality by requiring the FSCA’s investigation to be concluded, the SCA held that the FSCA correctly relied on section 96 of the FMA to bring the liquidation application against JP Markets. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 3:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The Board does not see any reason why the applicant could not do so in response to a notification pursuant to R 51(4), in particular in a situation where, as here, the notification was not preceded by a notification pursuant to A 96(2) EPC 1973 and, therefore, is a “first notification” within the meaning of R 86(3) EPC 1973. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 4:23 am
  How does one square these contradictory settings? [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 6:38 pm
In Fales, the Supreme Court of Canada relieved the will-maker’s widow from liability, while holding the professional co-trustee liable for loss occurring as a result of the trustees failing to sell the shares of a company within a reasonable time.But the effect of section 96, while allowing the court to relieve a non-professional cotrustee of liability, does not raise the standard of the professional trustee to any higher level than the "man of ordinary prudence. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 2:51 am
(2) Directive 96/9 precludes national law from conferring copyright protection upon a database which does not meet the requirements laid down in Article 3 of the Directive itself".Did the Court of Justice agree? [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
A 100 does not state that it is a ground of revocation that the patent was granted on a divisional application whose subject-matter as filed extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
As the Board had already explained in its decisions J 7/96 [2.2] and J 8/96 [2.2], these provisions form part of a system of legal process which is provided under the EPC for determining the right to a European patent application when this is in dispute, and for implementing this determination. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 5:00 pm by Rhonda Shirreff
Currently, the ESA does not regulate an employer’s right to schedule work, aside from providing that an employee who attends a scheduled shift must receive at least three hours’ pay, even if the shift is shorter. [read post]