Search for: "Fernandez v. Ins*" Results 181 - 200 of 372
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2014, 11:00 am by James S. Friedman, LLC
  This decision is similar in many respects to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fernandez v. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
Last week, the United States Supreme Court decided Fernandez v. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 4:27 am by SHG
There has been a good deal of moaning over the demise of the 4th Amendment after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fernandez v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 11:00 am by Orin Kerr
Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court decided Fernandez v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 2:43 pm by Rory Little
Unsurprisingly (see my post-argument analysis here), this morning the Court ruled in Fernandez v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 1:25 am by Gilles Cuniberti
PARK (Boston University)The Deontology of Arbitration’s Discontents : Between the Pernicious and the Precarious Louis PERREAU-SAUSSINE (Université Paris-Dauphine)Le conflit entre clause compromissoire et clause attributive de juridiction Gérard PLUYETTE (Cour de cassation)Actualités du droit de l’arbitrage : l’obligation de révélation des arbitres et le contrôle de l’ordre public de fond par la Cour de cassation Anne… [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 3:05 am by paola Aurucci
Perez v Fernandez: Australia's First Decision on the Moral Right of Integrity" (2013) 23 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 174UWA Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2013-32JANI MCCUTCHEON, University of Western Australia - Faculty of LawEmail: jani.mccutcheon@uwa.edu.auThis article examines the recent Federal Magistrates Court decision of Perez v Fernandez, Australia’s first case on the moral right of integrity. [read post]
7 Dec 2013, 5:33 pm by David Smith
This also means that for these tenancies cases such as Church Commissioners v Meya, Macdonald v Fernandez, and Lower St Properties v Jones are also all irrelevant as they all deal with aspects of s21(4)(a) notices. [read post]
7 Dec 2013, 5:33 pm by David Smith
This also means that for these tenancies cases such as Church Commissioners v Meya, Macdonald v Fernandez, and Lower St Properties v Jones are also all irrelevant as they all deal with aspects of s21(4)(a) notices. [read post]