Search for: "Does 1-45"
Results 1 - 20 of 5,072
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Aug 2012, 11:47 am by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-45, this one pro se, and the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of law opposing the motion.Doe #1 motion to quashPlaintiff's opposition memorandum var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 4:29 pm by Ray Beckerman
John Does 1-45, Doe #41 has filed a motion to sever John Does 2-45, dismiss the complaint as to them, and quash the related subpoenas.Notice of MotionMemorandum of LawDoe #41 DeclarationMorlan Ty Rogers Affidavit var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 9:59 am by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-45, Doe #41 has filed his or her reply memorandum.Reply Memorandum of Doe #41 var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 3:05 pm by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-45, a Manhattan BitTorrent download case, the motion by defendant Doe #41 to sever, dismiss, and quash, has been granted by District Judge Barbara S. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 8:33 am by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-45, a second Doe has moved to quash, this one appearing pro se and filing his or her motion through the Pro Se Clerk's office.Doe #8 motion to quash var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 3:19 pm by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-45 Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to motion by Doe #41 var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 3:43 pm by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-45, the plaintiff has filed its papers responding to the motion to quash filed by pro se defendant Doe #8.Plaintiff's time to respond to a separate motion filed by defendant Doe #41 has not run yet.Plaintiff's memorandum of law responding to motion by defendant Doe #8 var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 7:31 am by
Following successful completion of Phase 1, ABBA is eligible for a Phase 2 award of up to $45 million from DOE for construction and operation of the project. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 4:29 am by Woodrow Pollack
" The problem with these arguments was they did not deal with the means for quashing a subpoena spelled out in Rule 45, which requires a Court to quash a subpoena when the subpoena: (1) does not allow reasonable time to comply; (2) violates certain geographic restrictions; (3) requires disclosure of protected information; or (4) subjects the recipient to undue burden. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 8:36 am by The Dear Rich Staff
By the way, the fee for filing a paper application has risen from $45 to $50. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 12:21 pm by Erin Rhinehart
  Absent congressional action, these revisions will become effective on December 1, 2013. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 1:49 pm by Corinna Lain
By a 54-45 vote, Neil Gorsuch will be the newest addition to the Supreme Court bench. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 7:36 am by Broc Romanek
Does your company require executives to comply with HSR filing requirements upon acquiring company shares: - Yes, and they have been for a while - 39% - Yes, but only recently because of this enforcement action - 16% - No - 45% 2. [read post]
27 Aug 2008, 7:31 pm
The US Sentencing Commission has a public meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 28, 2008, at 1:45 pm. [read post]
23 May 2016, 7:26 am
Courts generally treat a constructive discharge like a firing.When does a claim like that accrue (triggering the 45-day period)? [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 2:21 pm by Christina Tarr
Room: Sheraton Gardner A7:00-8:30 am OBS HEADS OF SYSTEMS [CANCELLED]8:30-9:45 D-1: The Innovative Interfaces/SkyRiver vs. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 3:40 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Appellant John McEwan loses his appeal to the Board:The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-18, 20, 21, 23-38,40-45, 47, and 49 is affirmed.As to teaching away:If a prior art reference discloses a different solution to a similar problem, it does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. [read post]