Search for: "Does 1 - 33"
Results 1941 - 1960
of 6,149
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2023, 11:51 am
The SPVA does not require the Coast Guard to promulgate rules, and it is not retroactive. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 8:39 am
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.] [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 12:47 pm
Moreover, the lower standard mandated by Rule 14-1(33) must also be exercised with restraint, as the Court reasoned at paras. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 10:24 am
However, the 2005 Prison Act does not include rules related to the use of CCTV surveillance in cells. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 7:09 am
§1369(b)(1). [read post]
9 Jun 2013, 2:32 pm
So far the campaign has raised almost $10,000 and still has 33 days to go. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 1:43 pm
Subbasins 1-4 ended in last downstream major damsites controlled by the individual states. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 1:04 pm
Biden’s Day 1 Immigration Bill: The U.S. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 9:49 am
Id. at 1. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 8:22 am
The converse, however, is not true, and the existence of a reputation associated with a person, product, name or mark does not necessarily imply the existence of goodwill. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 1:43 pm
Subbasins 1-4 ended in last downstream major damsites controlled by the individual states. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 4:41 pm
The bill originally passed in the Senate 33-13. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 12:00 am
(T 966/18) (14 July 2021)1. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 1:43 pm
Subbasins 1-4 ended in last downstream major damsites controlled by the individual states. [read post]
13 Aug 2024, 6:26 pm
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 5:41 pm
[1] The People's Priorities: Gallup's Top 10, [www.gallup.com] (last visited Mar. 3, 2008) [read post]
14 Aug 2016, 5:04 pm
While the Court’s opinion does not require a lodestar double check, it does mandate that the trial court use some means to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee. [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 2:57 am
Since it applied to any document filed with the EPO, the EBA saw no reason why it should not also apply to appeals (see G 1/12, Reasons 33 to 36). [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 12:04 am
Examples: if 1 of 2 children visit, the amount of abatement would be only 25% (50% times 50% = 25%), if 1 of 3 visit, the amount of abatement would be only 17% (33% times 50% = 17%) or if 2 of 3 visit, the amount of abatement would be only 33% (66% times 50% = 33%).This same provision gets repeated in Rule 7 D. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 6:08 am
" The Report does note that suits with ’33 Act allegations reached "historically high levels" in 2007 and 2008, and that as these cases settle over the next few years, the importance of ’33 Act claims in determining settlement amounts "may increase. [read post]
