Search for: "STATE IN THE INTEREST OF J.A."
Results 181 - 200
of 266
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2012, 4:38 pm
Finally, in perhaps the most important passages of the judgment, Frankel J.A. referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Tercon, stating: As Binnie J. stated in Tercon, “The residual power of a court to decline enforcement exists but, in the interest of certainty and stability of contractual relations, it will rarely be exercised”: para. 117. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 10:10 am
Those interested in construction law are watching to see how Tercon will be applied in subsequent cases. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 4:19 pm
In the case of Cassells, the Court considered the interesting issue of what is novel scientific evidence and also considered whether the trial judge had properly applied the Janiak test in assessing the plaintiff’s mitigation efforts. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 3:26 pm
It will be interesting to see if Clement et. al. come up with anything new in their merits brief. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 5:00 am
Koellner 85,000 130,016 11,250 226,266 Cornelis J.A. van Lede 78,750 123,758 72,655 275,163 Dr. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 2:41 pm
As Loreburn E. stated at pp. 320-21 in Adam v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 5:39 am
” J.A. 25, 57. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 1:34 pm
Joint Appendix (“J.A [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 4:26 am
While J.A. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 5:47 pm
" J.A. 131. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 7:46 pm
” J.A. 847, ¶ 2. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 10:54 am
" 2010-1243 J.A. 193. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 1:36 am
– Austin 1988); J.A. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 8:30 pm
" 2010-1263 J.A. 20. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end of lawsuits.) [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:56 pm
("ACI") appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 10:13 pm
United States, 434 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 6:23 am
In an expert declaration submitted by Tygar in this case, he listed the Tygar-Yee article as prior art, J.A. 7951, and stated that he under- stood that “prior art consist[s] of publications . . . dated before the invention or more than one year before the filing of the patent application,” J.A. 7961. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 4:13 pm
MemsTech appealed, in a matter of interest only for a review of crusty case law. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 11:31 am
J.A. is a bad one. [read post]
