Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 121 - 140
of 458
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2020, 2:08 pm
" Typically, you compare and contrast: Rule X doesn't apply, whereas the text of Rule Y seems straightforward and governs.At the end of the opinion, Justice Sanchez tells us what period does apply. [read post]
14 Jan 2021, 8:13 am
Adding "asserts truth of matter asserted" or "X is testifying about what Y said" wouldn't really add much, would it? [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 9:50 am
Henry v. [read post]
29 Mar 2014, 2:49 am
X amount in the U.S., Y amount in Europe, and Z amount in the rest of the world. [read post]
27 May 2023, 10:44 am
Precedents like Train v. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
JESSICA PARKER VALENTINE AND BRYAN L. [read post]
19 Sep 2021, 6:01 am
We can graph these two related concepts on an x-y axis. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 5:47 pm
Y. 301, 80 N. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 5:30 am
[x] See Frank Blechschmidt, All Alone in Arbitration: AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 1:45 am
Lord Phillips, Lord Brown and Lord Dyson all analysed the cases concerning Austrian judgements alongside another strand of ECtHR authority relating to cases from Norway Ringvold v Norway (Application No. 34964/97) and Y v Norway (2003) 41 EHRR 87. [read post]
2 Jun 2018, 4:12 pm
App’x at 147. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 7:32 am
Granting an adoption preference to parents of Tribe X who live on the reservation of Tribe Y when the child is a member of Tribe Y would indeed be a means of respecting tribal sovereignty and not simply treating Indian status as a racial classification. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:40 am
HRA s12(2) applies in respect of both (a) respondents to the proceedings and (b) any non-parties who are to be served with or otherwise notified of the order, because they have an existing interest in the information which is to be protected by an injunction (X & Y v Persons Unknown [2007] EMLR 290 at [10] – [12]). [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 8:51 am
App’x 517, 520 (5th Cir. 2018). [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 2:38 pm
In other words, if there is an integration clause in a contract that says “X”, even if one party may have orally maintained “Y” throughout the dealings with the other party, the other party will likely be cut off from using the oral representation of “Y” against the other party, because the contract states “X”. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 5:52 am
Royal Soc’y Med. 295 (1965). [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 1:41 pm
Regular readers of the blog will recall that X and Y v LB Hounslow (above) was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 32666/10 by X,Y and Z against the United Kingdom) as permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 9:36 pm
(Rafael Henrique | Dreamstime.com)On Monday, the Supreme Court held oral argument in Murthy v. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 9:21 am
And both seek to bring the full weight of the vanguard political party (or group), with the power of the state behind it, to bear on the pronouncement. [read post]
25 Jan 2022, 8:23 am
by Dennis Crouch Masimo Corp. v. [read post]
