Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 141 - 160
of 20,084
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2011, 8:07 am
Similar to its federal counterpart, Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the jury's deliberations, or... [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 8:09 am
” Brian T. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 10:00 pm
The core decision where this follows from is this decision, T 1329/04. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
(b) during an increase in the power demand from the IGCC system excess liquid oxygen is withdrawn... [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
(b) during an increase in the power demand from the IGCC system excess liquid oxygen is withdrawn... [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 3:40 pm
(b) Why the hell are people saying "holiday" instead of Thanksgiving? [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 2:12 pm
Onna is unique because it is cloud native and collaboration focused; it doesn’t matter if companies are integrating 20 applications or 200. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 6:42 am
The court denied B&B’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 6:56 am
Sounds reasonable doesn't it? [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:14 am
I don't know much about § 10(b) or its extra-territorial application, the subject of today's decision in Morrison v. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 2:17 pm
" The Supreme Court of Texas today held the non-specification of the actual employer as a party to the arbitration agreement didn't matter. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 11:10 am
Despite the agency's efforts to assist the respondent father to improve his deficient parenting skills and to remediate his propensity for domestic violence, the father's aggressive and threatening behavior continued unabated (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 841-842 [1986]; see also Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006]; Matter of Ajuwon H., 18 AD3d 752 [2005]). [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 2:13 am
Rule 137(5) EPC is therefore not contravened.This is in line with the reasoning of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal T 507/11 (see Reasons 1.1 to 1.3), T 1285/11 (see Reason 2), T 1981/12 (see Reasons 4.1 to 4.5), and T 998/14 (see Reasons 1.1 to 1.3) dealing with similar circumstances. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 9:48 pm
No, in one sense it doesn't matter what you call it. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 8:18 am
The HHJ, however, viewed it “as a matter of practicality” and “there is no going back or ascertaining what would have happened if appropriate help and guidance had been given earlier. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 8:18 am
The HHJ, however, viewed it “as a matter of practicality” and “there is no going back or ascertaining what would have happened if appropriate help and guidance had been given earlier. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 8:23 am
In the Matter of Claudia B. v Darren M., the New York appellate Court recounts how the Petitioner (donor) and Respondent (Claudia B.) dated for a few months in 2009. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 3:55 pm
Uh, but under 12(b)(6), doesn’t the court need to construe Trinity’s assertion that it held valid US patents as fact? [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:43 am
The subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty in view of D1. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The present claim is comparable to the device claims of the auxiliary request in decision T 775/97 [3.1] which were found not to fall under the exclusion clause of A 52(4) EPC 1973.The reasoning of T 82/93 [1.5-5] is not applicable to the present situation either. [read post]
