Search for: "Does 1-2000"
Results 41 - 60
of 8,407
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Dec 2015, 4:30 am
Fla. 2000). [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 11:14 am
§112, ¶1. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 4:08 pm
An internet referencing service provider which stores, as a keyword, a sign identical with a trade mark and organises the display of advertisements on the basis of that keyword does not use that sign within the meaning of Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 89/104 or of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 40/94. 3. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 5:20 pm
According to Case-Shiller, Phoenix prices have declined some 55 percent since their peak in 2006, a decline that places home values at the equivalent of prices on January 1, 2000. [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]
18 Dec 2007, 8:48 am
Doe's attorney, Earl McCoy of Lafayette, questioned the logic of the law, which took effect July 1, 2006. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 2:22 am
The first five UDRP decisions (1 commenced in1999 and the first four of 2000) were decided in Complainants’ favor without Respondents’ participation. [read post]
1 Jun 2008, 10:07 am
In October 2000, the SEC promulgated Rule 10b5-1 to provide company insiders with a way to trade their shares in company stock without incurring securities law liability, through the pre-trading adoption of a written trading plan. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 8:01 am
The post Does Embedding a Tweet Count as Copyright Infringement? [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 11:13 am
In 2000, California overhauled its drug laws by enacting Proposition 36. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 9:43 am
QUESTION: In 2000 I was convicted by U.S. federal court of 1 count of "false statement" to a U.S. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 1:53 pm
§ 40-1-1(24). [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 10:12 pm
Per a Connecticut appeals court, looking at an employee and saying “Bang bang” does not, even when added to some other impolite conduct, rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous” behavior required to trigger a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress [Daniel Schwartz] Tags: Connecticut, emotional distress, workplace Related posts September 9 roundup (6) October 2000 archives, part 2 (1) May 2002 archives, part 1… [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 10:17 pm
(0) March 2003 archives, part 1 (0) March 2000 archives, part 2 (1) [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 7:31 am
Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed.Cir. 2000). [read post]
7 Jan 2022, 12:29 pm
SEC Rule 10b5-1, put into place in 2000, establishes that a person’s purchase or sale of securities is not “on the basis of” material nonpublic information if, before becoming aware of the information, the person enters into a binding contract, instruction, or trading plan (as defined in the rule) covering the securities transaction at issue. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 4:10 am
The court's per curiam opinion summarizes the holding:A majority of the en banc court ...concludes that (1) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ... and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... are interpreted uniformly; and (2) preventing access to religious exercise is an example of substantial burden. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 4:50 pm
Private Letter Ruling 200709010 addresses the situation where an estate planning client creates an estate plan intending to use their $1 million generation skipping transfer tax exemption, but then continues to make post-December 31, 2000 transfers to their irrevocable trust which benefits certain "skip persons. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 11:29 pm
The option was exercisable beginning September 1, 2003. [read post]
6 Jan 2018, 6:40 am
Bill 148 reforms have ushered in changes to the public holiday provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). [read post]
