Search for: "State v. Bene" Results 1 - 20 of 77
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2023, 2:48 pm by CFM Admin
State-registered advisers need to examine their states’ regulations to determine who constitutes a “client. [read post]
1 May 2023, 4:36 am by Peter J. Sluka
§ 21-2,201) precluded the application of either a discount for lack of marketability (“DLOM”) or a minority discount (Bohac v Benes Serv. [read post]
15 Dec 2022, 8:00 am by CFM Admin
Although the project is being conducted in a purely experimental fashion using simulated data, the pilot can be seen as one of the first steps taken by a governmental agency towards creating a central bank digital currency.SEC v. [read post]
15 Dec 2022, 4:00 am by CFM Admin
Although the project is being conducted in a purely experimental fashion using simulated data, the pilot can be seen as one of the first steps taken by a governmental agency towards creating a central bank digital currency.SEC v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 8:56 pm by Mark Ashton
Super. 161    (Sept. 21, 2022)  Bender, Dubrow & King w/o dissent/concurrence Nota bene: A judicial friend sent me a copy of Shoemaker v. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 12:22 am by Roel van Woudenberg
This is furthermore confirmed by the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO which state that an application may not be refused directly after the reply to a communication under Rule 161(1) EPC (Guidelines C-V, 14).1.2.2 The "Invitation pursuant to Rule 137(4) EPC and Article 94(3) EPC" can also not be considered a substantive communication under Article 94(3) EPC.A communication under Article 94(3) and Rule 71(1) EPC is a substantive communication, taking into account any… [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 4:21 am by Peter Mahler
Nebraska Supreme Court Overturns Application of Discounts In Fair-Value Buyout Bohac v Benes Service Co., 310 Neb. 722 [Neb. [read post]
21 Nov 2021, 7:07 am by Giles Peaker
  Having looked at new evidence de bene esse, it is extremely cogent. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 1:45 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Divisional Court refused to admit the evidence of Dr Kádár, but considered it de bene esse (i.e. on a provisional basis). [read post]