Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 81 - 100
of 456
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 May 2010, 11:36 am
Pronouncing the English alphabet: I used to get students to write the letters in groups according to the vowel sound, like this (this presumes the British pronunciation of Z as zed - if it is pronounced zee, it goes in the second line instead: A H J K B C D E G P T V F L M N S X Z I Y O Q U W R Many thanks to Martina for this report. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 2:33 am
The chip uses two registers (an X register and a Y register) with two decoders (an X decoder and a Y decoder) to figure out what goes where there is a "Y-select circuit. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:29 pm
As in Forby v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:47 am
However, the EU General Court, relying on an earlier case of Breyer v Federal Republic of Germany, held that identifiability should be seen through the lens of the particular context of the involved party standing before them in court. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
[X] was not a party to those proceedings. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 1:05 pm
Co. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 12:19 pm
And where: (c) An authorisation to place Product X on the market as a medicinal product has been granted; (d) An SPC has been granted in respect of Product X; and (e) A separate authorisation to place Product Y on the market as a medicinal product has subsequently been granted. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 7:20 am
This right allowed Waystar to repurchase the LP units “during the six (6) month period following (x) the (i) [t]ermination of [Weinberg’s] employment with the Service Recipient for any reason … and (y) a Restrictive Covenant Breach. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 1:03 pm
Today, the International Court of Justice concluded its public hearings in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 9:40 am
After all, a non-trivial percentage of Gen Y will have posted similar photos, so what seems odd to Gen X may seem natural to Gen Y. 4) These photos depict teenage girls testing their limits and exploring sexual topics. [read post]
1 Sep 2012, 9:11 am
Mr. x adamantly denies all of the claims asserted by your client. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Suppose that an American drug company asserted an arbitrable claim for infringement against a competitor in country X for infringement of its U.S. patent in the United States, and suppose that the tribunal, sitting in country Y, decided that the U.S. patent was invalid under the law of country X. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Suppose that an American drug company asserted an arbitrable claim for infringement against a competitor in country X for infringement of its U.S. patent in the United States, and suppose that the tribunal, sitting in country Y, decided that the U.S. patent was invalid under the law of country X. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 11:00 pm
Our most recent in-depth human rights case comments: Removal of child following faulty diagnosis of injury breached Article 8 ((AD and OD v United Kingdom (Application No 28680/06)) Exceptionally serious circumstances must be established to resist extradition order says Supreme Court (Norris v United States ) EU Directive on Refugee status does not enhance asylum rights under Strasbourg Convention (The Queen on the Application of MK(Iran) v Secretary of State… [read post]
18 Jun 2016, 5:09 am
Nor is petitioner a “compan[y]” within the meaning of the Treaty. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Its reasoning for so holding is entirely consistent with the approach to section 60(2) laid down by the Court of Appeal in this country in Grimme v Scott and KCI v Smith & Nephew (see my previous judgment at [102]).Fourthly, the Court took into account (at [4.34]-[4.36]) the fact that Sun had not taken steps which it could have taken, but this does not appear to have been critical to its reasoning. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 3:27 pm
But that's not a divorce case at all, and is instead a normal writ proceeding that merely holds that when the petitioner asks only for X in its writ (there, to not produce some documents), the trial court doesn't have jurisdiction to grant petitioner an alternative, Y, that the writ petition never requested (there, to redact the documents instead). [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 12:49 pm
Because let's say a plaintiff initially sues you for X set of facts, with Y cause of action, and that cause of action arises out of conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, but you think: "Well, shucks, I could file an anti-SLAPP motion, but you know what, Y cause of action really is true, so I'd lose. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 4:04 pm
I doubt that this is right; the First Amendment ban on religious decisions by secular courts should preclude slander or libel lawsuits that require evaluation of religious statements (e.g., “X is a sinner,” “X violated God’s law,” “X is not a true Christian,” etc.), but I don’t think the First Amendment should preclude such lawsuits based on ordinary secular assertions (“X had sex with Y,”… [read post]
