Search for: "CO.1. Means" Results 61 - 80 of 16,581
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am by chief
Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 487 (LC)Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 502 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 509 (LC)No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 580 (LC)Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 598 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd [2013]… [read post]
2 Oct 2022, 11:30 pm by Patrick Bracher (ZA)
The Travelers Indemnity Co v Northrop Grumman Corp Case No. 1:16-cv-08778 US District Court for the Southern District of New York https://casetext.com/case/travelers-indem-co-v-northrop-grumman-corp-2 [read post]
5 Jun 2008, 11:00 am
In re Tokutake Industry Co., Ltd., Serial No. 79018656 (May 14, 2008) [Precedential].Applicant acknowledged that both the foreign characters and the English lettering "represent the same term. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 9:05 am by Guest Author
This post adds to the debate about the meaning of “set aside” in 5 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 8:49 am
The growing indifference of Matt Lauer, her co-host, had hurt the most, but there was also just a general meanness on set. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 7:55 am
The Texas Board of Criminal Justice approved a 10% pay hike for new prison guard hires at its meeting today in Austin, reports AP, boosting starting pay and eliminating what is currently the third salary step for COs, meaning guards will get pay increases faster:The changes, effective May 1, will boost salary of a starting officer from $23,046 to $25,416 and compress seniority requirements to allow new officers to achieve higher pay grades in fewer months. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 11:00 am by John Duffy
Under the court’s decision, the apparent meaning of the textual limitations in (f)(2) is not undermined by a broad interpretation of (f)(1). [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 2:05 am by Paul M. Hamburger, Guest Contributor
” This means that the plan’s decision would only be overturned if it were without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence, or erroneous as a matter of law. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 7:11 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present. [read post]
8 May 2007, 9:27 am
Members of the plan actually pay a lot less, through nominal co-pays or deductibles. [read post]