Search for: "PARENTING OF D D K K D D G"
Results 161 - 180
of 276
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2012, 12:18 pm
The parent may not want to unwittingly take on an obligation to the employee, although much will depend on how the relationship of the employee plays out with the parent company and the degree of the relationship between the parent and subsidiary companies in practice as there is, at common law, the doctrine of common employer that allows the court to treat different entities as one employer for the purpose of attributing to liability for damages flowing from such actions… [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
(d) It is not the function of a board of appeal to review all the facts of the case as if it were in the place of the first instance department in order to decide whether or not it would have exercised the discretion in the same way. [read post]
29 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
(d) A 67(4) provides for the point in time when the A 64 rights must end and thereafter are no longer still in existence. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
For the board, this explains why it was possible that e-mail C5 corresponding to the final feature of current claim 1, i.e. the feature of claim 5 of the parent application (just like C3 corresponding to current claim 3, i.e. the feature of claim 7 of the parent application), could be sent on 25 January 2000 (C3: 17 January 2000), i.e. before the filing date of the parent application on 1 February 2000, from Mr de Vries of AkzoNobel to Mr Mooij, the representative of the… [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 9:00 pm
Décision T600/08 (en langue allemande) Lire une traduction anglaise sur le site K's Law [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 1:10 pm
The father objected, claiming this violates his parental rights with regard to R and G. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Decisions allowing the request for correction on the basis of R 99(1)(a) and R 101 (2) (R 64 (a) and R 65(2) EPC 1973)(a) In T 340/92, correction of the name of the appellant was allowed and the appeal declared admissible because the erroneous mention of the appellant’s name was held to be due to a confusion between the name of the appellant company (societe Croizet-Pourty) and its parent company (SOGEA). [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 3:08 am
iGAAP : IFRS for Canada : a comprehensive reference guide by Deloitte ; editors, Peter D. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 11:00 am
Section 615(d)(1)(B). [read post]
4 Feb 2012, 10:04 am
HENRY A/K/A MITCHEL M. [read post]
21 Jan 2012, 2:24 am
Günes/K. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 1:55 pm
EDWARD DARRELL TRAYLOR and PERRY MICHAEL TRAYLOR, Appellees. 5th District.Child custody -- Where two women who were involved in lesbian relationship and wished to have a baby which they would raise together paid a reproductive doctor to withdraw ova from one, the biological parent, have the ova artificially inseminated with the sperm of a donor, and have the ova inserted into the womb of the other, the birth parent, both women have parental rights to the child -- Woman who… [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:56 pm
In determining the parent-time schedule and allocating the transportation costs, the court shall consider: (a) the reason for the parent’s relocation; (b) the additional costs or difficulty to both parents in exercising parent-time; (c) the economic resources of both parents; and (d) other factors the court considers necessary and relevant. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 1:19 pm
D/B/A LEXUS OF ORLANDO, Appellant, v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 8:37 am
So, the supervisor did exactly what she said she’d do and submitted the couple’s file for review? [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 11:30 am
(k) Indecent act. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 6:45 am
d. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:20 am
(g)? [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
LANE AND ROBERT G. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 1:59 am
Abdussalam, and G. [read post]
