Search for: "State v. C. R. C."
Results 1 - 20
of 13,648
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2024, 11:26 am
For example, Question 2(c) asks whether serial acquisitions encourage “actual or attempted coordination or collusion between competitors” and Question 3 posits nine subparts about ways in which an acquirer might harm competition, including tying and refusals to deal. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:31 am
AK, R (On the Application Of) v Westminster City Council (2024) EWHC 769 (Admin) This was a judicial review of Westminster’s Allocation policy as it applied to ‘reciprocal transfers’ between another borough and Westminster. [read post]
19 Jun 2024, 8:00 am
§ 25.2702-5; Sohn v. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 5:01 am
(There's also a reddit r/sarritaadams, which points the reader to r/scienceontrial.) [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 8:56 pm
[…] Given this, and considering that the appealed decision overturned the exequatur decree of the judgment in question on the ground that the [Canadian] judgment, which recognized a judgment from the United States, was a “summary judgment” (hukm musta’jil) enforceable only in the rendering State, despite the broad wording of [the applicable provisions],[vii] which covers all judgments (kul al-ahkam) rendered in a foreign State without specifying… [read post]
15 Jun 2024, 6:31 am
Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. [read post]
15 Jun 2024, 6:31 am
Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 10:29 am
The R&R states that even on a liberal reading of the RFA, Dr. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 1:48 pm
R. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 1:06 pm
For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were: R. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 1:33 pm
R. 69(a) & D.C. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:00 am
"Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal… [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:00 am
"Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal… [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 5:50 am
This is a high but not impossible bar to meet, as shown in United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 12:19 pm
The Cyrus R. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 9:40 am
The review decision in part stated I refer to R v Oxford CC ex p Doyle (1997) concluding that a Child Arrangement Order does not mean the Children are reasonably expected to live with both parents. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 4:20 am
The court dismisses this request because it regards R. 158 RoP only applicable in main proceedings. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:21 am
Regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy, a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 noted that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, location or circumstance if the person does not expect to be secretly recorded or observed. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 5:50 am
In general, the best defences are: Legitimate Reasoning & No Undue Harm Section 163.1(6) of the Code states that if the material in question was produced for a legitimate reason related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art; and it does not pose an undue risk of harm to minors, then you cannot be convicted. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 3:47 am
The case of R v ML, 2021 NBCA 27 also stated that the actus reus is made out where a “reasonable person aware of the circumstances would perceive the words as a threat of death or bodily harm”. [read post]
