Search for: "In re Amendment to Rule 39" Results 1 - 20 of 494
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2009, 1:24 am
The Florida Supreme Court released the following court rule opinions:Opinions Released Mar. 19, 2009SC08_1612 - In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile ProcedureSC08_2176 - In re: Approval of Application for Determination of Indigent Status Form For Use By Clerks and Amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.984Opinions Released Mar. 5, 2009OP_SC08_1488 - In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases -… [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 4:00 pm
The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted amendments to ethics rules that allow lawyers to mention their inclusion in Super Lawyers and other ratings. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 6:25 pm
Therefore, the Board denied the motion, but noted that Inofin could file a renewed motion that addressed those deficiencies.Motion to Divide/Motion to Amend Opposition: Inofin moved to divide the opposed application so that the services in classes 35, 37, and 39 could proceed to issuance. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 2:02 am by INFORRM
On 6 April 2019 an amended version of the rule governing hearings, CPR 39, came into force. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 2:37 am
Prior to the Rule change, the motion could be made at the time of the offer of the deposition into evidence (i.e., during the testimony period).The Board, noting its April 2016 statement regarding flexible application of the revised rules in cases pending as of the effective date of the rules, decided to construe Applicant's response to the motion to strike as a motion to re-open the period for electing and taking cross-examination of these nine… [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 8:49 am by Bill White
The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted amendments to ethics rules that allow lawyers to mention their inclusion in Super Lawyers and other ratings. [read post]
19 Nov 2006, 12:07 pm
The Republican-led Rules Committee chose not to allow the House to debate that Amendment -- a move that I deemed so egregious that I voted against the Intelligence funding bill for the first time in my career. [read post]
1 Feb 2009, 5:35 am
How does the Fourth Amendment ever win if that's the question? [read post]
22 May 2017, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
The transcript ruling makes for a fascinating read even if you’re not interested in the law of LLCs. [read post]
21 Jul 2009, 8:30 am
  Judge Everignham's opinion reviewed the history and purpose of local patent rules, then he explained the context of dispute. [read post]
23 Dec 2007, 12:51 pm
Fellow entrepreneur Mark Britton at Avvo scored double victories the week before Christmas, and if you weren't watching, then you should have been, especially if you're a lawyer or you're trying to find one. [read post]
18 May 2009, 1:37 pm
  According to today's 4-3 opinion by the Cal Supremes ( In Re Tobacco II Cases (May 17, 2009) ___Cal.4th___ (S147345)), only the class representative has to have standing. [read post]
26 Dec 2007, 2:17 pm
The last place you'd expect to be a hotbed of First Amendment free speech activity is a mall. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 8:13 am
District Court for the District of Columbia wrote the committee in April urging it to re-examine amending Rule 16 to require the disclosure of any exculpatory information. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 7:53 am by The BNA Act 1867
There was some mention made of Re: Resolution to Amend the Constitution, in which the Supreme Court ruled on how conventions would determine how to amend the soon to be patriated Constitution.1 This is an example of a reference case. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 10:48 am by Steve Davies
Res. 363, the rule providing for consideration of the bill, was agreed to yesterday, July 25th. [read post]
4 May 2008, 10:52 pm
Valicenti Advisory Servs., 471 F.Supp.2d 329, 333 (W.D.N.Y.2007)), but has stated in dictum and in an unpublished opinion that motions to amend are nondispositive and has suggested that the procedures of Rule 72(a) invariably apply. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 2:27 pm
Article 39 of the Magna Carta specifically guaranteed the right to a jury trial for civil suits and criminal cases. [read post]