Search for: "Does 1-88"
Results 1601 - 1620
of 2,128
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2011, 12:36 pm
As of today, the status of the 44 break down as follows: 20 died due to adjournment or had been rejected by their respective legislatures. 11 failed to make it out of committee in their originating house before the legislature’s internal deadline. 1 failed to make it out of committee in the second house before the legislature’s internal deadline (Oklahoma HB 1552). 1 was signed into law (Arizona’s HB 2064 on April 12). 11 remain at least theoretically… [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
Thus, the subject-matter of claim 1 lacks novelty and the main request does not comply with the requirements of A 54. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
[…] Refusal of the application at this stage is justified and does not violate the applicants right to be heard (A 113(1)). [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 9:20 am
NO. 95-595, at 4, 88 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 5966, 6049. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 12:07 pm
This historic treatment of IRAD and B&P costs even avoided the assault on the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) data rights provisions adopted in the late 1987-88 time period (only to be reversed in the 1995 revisions). [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
The Board, however, does not agree with this argument. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:58 am
As a result the [accusatory instruments] neither set out `. . .facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges’ as required by [§ 100.15(3)], nor does the information allege `. . . every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof’ as required by [§ 100.40(1)(c)]. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
Does this mean that the patent proprietor has given up those claims? [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 3:59 am
Auth., 88 AD2d 899, affd 57 NY2d 917.) [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 7:12 am
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 2:39 pm
The supporting parent does not have veto power over the choice of an educational institution, nor is the child necessarily limited to an in-state institution. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 8:03 am
Id. at 687-88. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
However, paragraph 1 does not require that the request be filed and the documents be produced at the same date.In the present case, on 24 January 2010 the alleged appellant filed the notice of appeal dated 23 January 2010, produced an assignment document at the same time, but failed to file a request for transfer of the patent as required by R 22(1). [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
In this context it has to be underlined that the reduction of the concentrations of active substances does not lead to an improvement of the contraceptive efficiency but exclusively to avoiding or reducing the above mentioned secondary effects. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 9:41 am
City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 8, fn. 3; Shoemaker v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 8:36 am
’l Ethics and Conduct, Op. 88-14 (1989); Michigan Bar Comm. on Prof. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
” nb – Court did not say it had to be exculpatory, though DA’s will make the claim it does. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
This finding does not conflict with the appellants’ argument that R 140 belongs to Part VII of the EPC and does therefore not relate to the grant proceedings. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 6:26 am
However, the Van Breda test does not fit well with internet-based libel actions. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
They were not inspired by article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and it does not follow that, because detention would be permissible under article 5(1)(f), it is also permissible under United Kingdom law. [read post]
