Search for: "In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 3. OTHERWISE" Results 101 - 120 of 636
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2013, 4:10 am by John L. Welch
In re Viterra Inc.., 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1905 (Fed. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 7:01 am
In re C.G., supra.The Court of Appeals then summarized the initial part of C.G. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 4:12 am
In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 12-15 (CCPA 1982). [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 2:10 pm
So holds a unanimous Florida Supreme Court in Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re: Question as to Whether Undocumented Immigrants Are Eligible for Admission to the Florida Bar (Fla. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 8:10 am by Harry Cole
  (Whether that interpretation would hold up is far from clear; the FCC's procedural rules can be read to say that, if OMD wanted to re-think its issuance of the initial refund, it had to do so within 30 days of the date shown on the check.) [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
  Otherwise they're pretty much the same, as illustrated by Sample OSC #3 signed by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Carolyn E. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
Fortunately, the ACOEM Initial Approaches to Treatment does provide criteria that can be applied beyond short-term needs, acknowledging that home healthcare is “selectively recommended to prevent (re)hospitalization, to overcome deficits in activities of daily living (ADLs), and/or to provide nursing, therapy and/or supportive care services for those who would otherwise require inpatient care” (ACOEM Initial Approaches to Treatment, October 22, 2021,… [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 1:44 pm
(Otherwise -- one would think -- it would never have been deemed to be conduct to be rewarded by this honorary degree, rather than this one.)Your Curmudgeon proposes to do what he can to rectify this situation, by publishing an annual update on this site of the current status of all past and present cases in which ECUSA or any of its dioceses has been or is involved, from 2000 to date. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
If you're going to accuse your business partner of bad acts and ask for judicial dissolution of the business, be prepared to settle or take the case all the way to trial. [read post]
18 Apr 2006, 3:50 pm by Frodnesor
This fixes the 362(c)(3) problem, but creates its own set of problems: if no case is commenced by such a filing, does that mean that no automatic stay is (or was) in effect as a result of the initial filing? [read post]
18 Apr 2006, 3:50 pm by Frodnesor
This fixes the 362(c)(3) problem, but creates its own set of problems: if no case is commenced by such a filing, does that mean that no automatic stay is (or was) in effect as a result of the initial filing? [read post]