Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 201 - 220
of 461
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2018, 11:02 am
But consistent with the existent regime for other crimes, the law creates a standard of strict liability: legal persons are liable for the aforementioned crimes committed, directly or indirectly, with their intervention or in their name, interest or benefit (Article 2).This approach is consistent with the standard of corporate liability already in force for other crimes, such as custom’s crimes, tax crimes, money laundering, insider trading, and securities fraud, among others.The… [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 12:55 am
Ecuador and Federación Nacional de Trabajadores Marítimos y Portuarios v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 5:19 am
Tarikonda v. [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 4:00 am
Accueillie en partie (13 940 $). [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 12:14 pm
There has to be some particular reason why X should be held to have assumed responsibility for protecting Y from Z. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:56 am
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:48 am
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 11:10 am
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 1:07 pm
Questioning the Merits of the Technology Chief Justice John Roberts questioned both parties on the technological aspects of Aereo’s service, first pointing out to the broadcasting companies that “[y]ou can go to Radio Shack and buy an antenna and a DVR or you can rent those facilities somewhere else from Aereo. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 7:25 am
The bench was relatively quiet for yesterday morning’s argument in Henson v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 2:24 am
The Panopticon blog has a post about the decision in W, X, Y and Z v Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for the Home Department and British Medical Association [2015] EWCA Civ 1034 concerning the sharing of medical information. [read post]
11 Jun 2016, 10:19 am
The majority retorted that the solution to an infringement of X constitutional right is not to give the plaintiffs Y, which is not a constitutional right. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 4:27 pm
., told his X followers why he thought former President Donald Trump should be reelected. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 11:55 am
Both parties make trip-blade and trip-edge plows. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 5:01 am
"); Doe v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:44 am
App’x 656 (9th Cir. 2012). [read post]
17 Apr 2020, 3:54 pm
What do you do when Employer fires Employee for (allegedly discriminatory) Reason X and then, during the litigation, discovers that Employee had done something totally wrong (Reason Y; e.g., faking his resume, stealing company property, etc) that would absolutely justify firing the guy? [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 4:00 am
O’Byrne, Y. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 11:11 am
(Think of person X testifying that he “heard” person Y “say” something.) [read post]
