Search for: "Does 1 - 44"
Results 21 - 40
of 4,331
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2008, 6:31 am
Both the First and Second Departments have previously held that CPL 440.30(1-a) does not permit defendants who have pleaded guilty to seek such DNA testing of forensic evidence (People v Lebron, 44 AD3d 310 [2007]; People v Byrdsong, 33 AD3d 175 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]). [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 6:17 am
Proc. 2007-44. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 8:13 am
§ 7-11-507(a)), the district court’s “Sentencing Order” does not include a statement to that effect, as required by W.R.Cr.P. 32(b)(1)(E) and Starrett v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 3:25 am
I've been on hold with American Airlines for 1 hour and 11 minutes.....ADDED: 1 hour and 44 minutes.... [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 5:03 am
Code § 44-53-375(B)(1), under which he was convicted does not provide for CSP. [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 11:00 pm
The court, therefore, does injustice to the wording of Art. 15 (1) lit. c) and ignores the pertaining literature. [read post]
3 Oct 2009, 1:56 pm
October 1, 2009).* Limewire software connection to the Internet showed no reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 11:17 am
No less than 44 amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case G 1/21, where the crucial referral question will be answered: “Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference compatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference? [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 11:00 pm
Is Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 not applicable for the court second seised if the court second seised comes to the conclusion that the court first seised lacks jurisdiction because of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001? [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 11:08 pm
IPBiz notes that it is not totally clear whether the 44% relates to fiscal 2007 [as does the 362,000 number]or for some other time period. [read post]
23 May 2014, 8:04 am
The Board allowed 18 of 19 substitute claims and cancelled the original claims 1-26. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 5:36 am
Here, the district court acknowledged, and BSC concedes, that claim 44 does not broaden the scope of coverage of the '762 patent. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 2:55 pm
Ras does not report his overnights. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 10:20 am
Kellogg North America Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1343–44, 1347 (Fed. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 4:39 am
Read comments and post your comment here.TTABlogger comment: This decision doesn't add much to TTAB jurisprudence, does it? [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 1:36 pm
Bruce MacDougall (UBC Faculty of Law) has posted The Direct Voice in Legal Discussions on Equality: An Essay (University of British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 181-204, 2011) on SSRN. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 2:56 am
But because Lululemon relied only on Sections 1(b) and 44(e) as the bases for its application to register, and did not claim use under Section 1(a), it could not rely upon or show acquired distinctiveness. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 1:04 pm
Generative AI is going to replace 44% of legal tasks, positions, or work? [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 8:43 am
The relevant sub para is 1(3)(a). [read post]
16 Dec 2007, 4:33 am
What is notable about both of these bills is that 1) they are extremely watered down versions of the original energy bills proposed, 2) they required the votes of both Democrats and Republicans to pass, and 3) it happened at both the state and federal levels.The U.S. [read post]
