Search for: "G. D. LEWIS" Results 21 - 40 of 404
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2023, 12:30 am by Rose Hughes
 In its preliminary opinion for G 2/21, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) raised some eyebrows by appearing to reference the standard test for sufficiency (IPKat). [read post]
8 Jan 2023, 7:35 am
Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar; Professor of Law and International Affairs Pennsylvania State University | 239 Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA 16802    1.814.863.3640 (direct) ||  lcb11@psu.edu   ABSTRACT: When US and  Chinese leaders refer to human rights, they invoke entirely different conceptions. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 3:33 am by Charles Sartain
Sonny Boy Kim Wilson Kitty (or maybe Daisy) and Lewis Paul Butterfield [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 12:49 am by INFORRM
On 1 December 2022, the Court of Appeal (Lewis, Elisabeth Laing and Warby LJJ) heard an appeal in the case of Millicom Service UK Limited & Ors v Clifford. [read post]
16 Nov 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Procureur général du Qu [read post]
17 Oct 2022, 2:05 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  One final note, from a D&O insurance perspective, is that the question of ESG activity as a factor of D&O liability exposure. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 2:30 pm by Hadley Baker
Donald Norcross, (D-N.J.) and Rep. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 6:21 pm
Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar Professor of Law and International Affairs Pennsylvania State University | 239 Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA 16802    1.814.863.3640 (direct) ||  lcb11@psu.edu   ABSTRACT: This contribution considers the challenges for semiotics, for the understanding of the conditions of meaning in relation to the human that is posed by a global obsession with the control of reality and its instrumentalization through the… [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am by admin
The Bradford Hill Predicate: Ruling Out Random and Systematic Error In two recent posts, I spent some time discussing a recent law review, which had some important things to say about specific causation.[1] One of several points from which I dissented was the article’s argument that Sir Austin Bradford Hill had not made explicit that ruling out random and systematic error was required before assessing his nine “viewpoints” on whether an association was causal. [read post]