Search for: "C. G., Matter of" Results 61 - 80 of 3,949
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2011, 10:03 am by Joel R. Brandes
Amendments to Rule 7.1 (c), (d), (e) and (g) of Part 1200 of Title 22 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, entitled “Rules of Professional Conduct, were approved by the four presiding justices of the Appellate Division departments. [read post]
18 May 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"** The Appellate Division noted that Member's "request for declaratory relief is not authorized in a proceeding transferred pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) and, thus, that part of the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for the entry of an appropriate judgment thereon. [read post]
18 May 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"** The Appellate Division noted that Member's "request for declaratory relief is not authorized in a proceeding transferred pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) and, thus, that part of the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for the entry of an appropriate judgment thereon. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
Following the principle of Roman law cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex, it comes to the conclusion that Swiss-type claims should no longer be used:Answer: Where the subject matter of a claim is rendered novel only by a new therapeutic use of a medicament, such claim may no longer have the format of a so called Swiss-type claim as instituted by decision G 5/83.This conclusion makes it necessary to introduce some transitional provisions: The EBA is aware of the fact that… [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 12:59 am
Here's an exciting new amendment to the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme and County Courts: §202.12 Preliminary Conference* * *(c) The matters to be considered at the preliminary conference shall include:* * *(3) Where the court deems appropriate, establishment of the method and scope of any electronic discovery, including but not limited to (a) retention of electronic data and implementation of a data preservation plan, (b) scope of electronic data review,… [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The Board also offers us some interesting – and possibly controversial – findings on how to understand certain statements of G 2/98. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 6:31 am by James Edward Maule
During 2001 and 2002, the taxpayer explored business opportunities in China, separate and apart from the A&G operations.For 2001 and 2002, A&G filed federal partnership income tax returns, which the taxpayer signed as tax matters partner. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
This decision also deals with objections under A 100(c) against the main request and several auxiliary requests.[6.1] In claim 1 of each of these requests, the coating composition is prepared by a process comprising at least two steps: the first ethylene polymer having a value of melt flow rate MFR12 comprised between 50 g/10min and 2000 g/10min is prepared, the second ethylene polymer having an MFR22 value lower than MFR12 is prepared. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 5:02 am by Tim Sturm
A private fund relying on 506(c) must still follow all other applicable securities regulations, such as the 2,000 investor limit pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (unless the investor is relying on a different exemption that limits investor count in the private fund). [read post]
8 May 2020, 9:25 am by Magdaleen Jooste
In this matter registration was sought for a shape that is a self-standing object known as Gömböc, which is “the most sphere-like body (apart from spheres)”. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 7:15 am by Kate Fort
Respondent-father appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) (other conditions exist that cause the child to come within the court’s jurisdiction), (3)(g) (failure to provideproper care or custody), and (3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm). [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
In particular, it is accepted that in the present case introducing a disclaimer for excluding subject-matter which would not be patentable under A 53(c) may not contravene A123(2). [read post]