The phrase "amended version in" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a modified or updated version of a document, text, or item, specifying the context in which the amendment applies.
Example: "The committee reviewed the amended version in the latest report before making their final decision."
Alternatives: "revised edition in" or "updated version in".
While Greenslade linked to the original Hyde story online it was an amended version in which the references to the lawyer being doorstepped have been deleted.
(The wording "restoring the 1992 constitution" does not make it clear whether this refers to the original version of the constitution, declaring Crimea an independent state, or the later amended version, in which Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine).
A request was coded as coming from either primary care or other non-primary care (secondary or tertiary) care using an amended version of the in-house laboratory coding system.
One of the changes, which is not described in the House or Senate Reports as having any substantive significance, was a rearrangement of the order of words so that "use" and "in commerce" came to appear side by side in the amended version, rather than in separate clauses.
The amended version was released in the UK in May.
This amended version had passed in the House.
His amended version remained unfavorable in tenor, but, as reported Thursday by Jalopnik, the Web site that broke the story, the article no longer included sentences like, "If this is the best vehicle Detroit exports, then Glenn Beck is right," and, "Regrettably, the 200 is still a dog".
So as to provide a legal basis to the link, the Guidelines for Determination of Eligible Child Care Centres (Childcare Assistance) were first tabled in Parliament in October 1993 with an amended version of the Guidelines tabled in December 1993.
Similarly, under the post-Hurd formulation, the facts upon which testimony is based need not even be admissible.(11) This liberalizing trend in New Jersey law initiated in Hurd and codified in the amended version of Rule 56(2) was not readily apparent, however, until the landmark decision in State v. Kellly(12) came down in 1984.
Similarly, under the post-Hurd formulation, the facts upon which testimony is based need not even be admissible. 37) This liberalizing trend in New Jersey law initiated in Hurd and codified in the amended version of Rule 56(2) was not readily apparent, however, until the landmark decision in State v. Kellly 38) came down in 1984.
On Thursday, Aroch filed an amended version of the suit in New York state court.
