Search for: "State v. R. V. B."
Results 1 - 20
of 15,482
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2024, 11:25 am
Elemer R. [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
Posted by Arthur B. [read post]
15 Jun 2024, 6:31 am
Posted by Arthur B. [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, 1:42 am
This analysis is consistent with recently published decisions by both the General Court and the Boards of Appeal on the topic, inter alia: mataharispaclub v EUIPO - Rouha (SpaClubMatahari), Gugler France v EUIPO - Gugler (GUGLER), R 1320/2022-4, CELESTINO, and R 470/2023-2, TOYA (fig.).Therefore, it is crucial for bad faith applicants to prioritise thorough, high-quality evidence collection for a successful case. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:28 am
In Ioengine, LLC v. [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]
10 Jun 2024, 12:43 am
Notably, § 112, r 6 does not state that the Specification must also describe equivalents of that structure. [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]
8 Jun 2024, 8:33 am
‘Now is the time to reassess presumption of parental involvement’, writes Lea Levine in the April issue of the journal[1]. [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]
5 Jun 2024, 9:40 am
Francis, asking if she believed women should have access to Plan B. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
R. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
R. [read post]
