Search for: "MATTER OF A W A V"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 8,370
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2013, 8:31 am
By William W. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 4:21 pm
W. [read post]
29 Apr 2023, 5:00 am
Matter of Town of Hempstead v New York State Div. of Human Rights 2023 NY Slip Op 02129 Decided on April 26, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
29 Apr 2023, 5:00 am
Matter of Town of Hempstead v New York State Div. of Human Rights 2023 NY Slip Op 02129 Decided on April 26, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Carcione, Jr., Gary W. [read post]
9 Jan 2022, 1:45 am
By stark contrast, for example, the EPO only requires that the specification sufficiently discloses a single embodiment falling under the scope of the claim (see also, Regeneron v Kymab, (IPKat) and Illumina v MGI (IPKat)). [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 5:48 pm
In SUREFOOT LC v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 6:05 am
Lucas v. [read post]
Ninth Circuit Discusses Withdrawal Under Rule 36(b); Determines Lower Court Did Not Abuse Discretion
5 Apr 2007, 2:44 am
Per Conlon v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 7:00 am
Levine V. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 10:03 am
Richard W. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 8:16 am
W. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
29 May 2015, 7:13 am
Changing 1 point v. 10 points in five minutes is an important cue for what I need to do; v. [read post]
A mechancial breakdown exclusion in a CGL may not extend to an event external to the actual machine.
16 Aug 2009, 4:36 pm
Caneast Foods Ltd. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:46 am
See Beatty v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
Absent a demonstration of ineffectiveness, counsel’s word on such matters is the lastA. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
Scott and Cody W. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 12:43 pm
James W. [read post]