Search for: "Does, 1-136" Results 81 - 100 of 1,075
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2013, 8:12 am
One monitoring well in LaSalle County ropped some 136 feet. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 11:24 am by Tyler S St Cyr
  Special Note: 136 Credits **Literacy credits include two required English Language Learner courses *** Dartmouth College does not currently offer a standalone elementary education program, but has 1.a minor degree option and 2. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 2:47 pm by Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., J.D.
  Section 136 of FMRA permits general aviation (“GA”) airports, defined by the statute as “a public airport . . . that does not have commercial service or has scheduled service with less than 2,500 passenger boardings each year,” to extend or enter into residential through-the-fence agreements with property owners, or associations representing property owners, under specified conditions. [read post]
7 May 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Town of Mount Pleasant, 128 AD3d 817, citing Doe v Lake Grove Sch., 107 AD3d 841; 6. [read post]
7 May 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Town of Mount Pleasant, 128 AD3d 817, citing Doe v Lake Grove Sch., 107 AD3d 841; 6. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 2:54 am
" Id., at 136.Next, in In re Kemmler, 136 U. [read post]
10 Aug 2007, 5:02 am
Does it give Americans a personal right to have a gun, for private use? [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
However, in the present case, the provisions of R 126(1) to (3) apply. [read post]
The majority decided that the attorney fee award is reasonable and does not violate First Amendment freedom of speech. [read post]
The majority decided that the attorney fee award is reasonable and does not violate First Amendment freedom of speech. [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
It follows that the appellant cannot bring itself within the language of A 122(1) by any argument that it had responsibility for forwarding the application.[5] It is clear from the provisions of A 77(5), taken together with A 135(1)(a) and A 136(2), that an applicant who suffers the misfortune suffered by the present appellant should not be entitled to claim restitution of rights under A 122. [read post]