Search for: "State v. English" Results 2021 - 2040 of 6,457
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 May 2012, 4:11 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
(2) If the court should have examined whether to refuse enforcement under Section 48(1)(a) for the reasons stated, has the Delhi High Court impliedly followed the Supreme Court in reading public policy in a wider manner (See, Phulchand Exports Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Feltz Design Build Ltd. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 2:00 am by Chelsea Rasmussen
Evidence must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the “balance of probabilities” test stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in F.H. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 7:22 am by CMS
The employee’s policy stated, in what the Supreme Court described as “admirably simple English”, that the insured was covered “if you have an accident in your vehicle and you kill or injure someone, you damage their property or you damage their vehicle”. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:17 pm by Vera Ranieri
Today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments in ClearCorrect v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 7:20 am by Ilya Somin
Texas has stated that it considers black and Latino students “under-represented” at the university, based in part on their proportions in the state population. [read post]
19 Jan 2013, 4:18 am by Marty Lederman
  More recently, in footnote 20 of its 1997 decision in Arizonans for Official English v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 3:34 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Therefore neither Essers nor Kazemeir were bound by an English jurisdiction clause in the original contracts between Exel and the respondents. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 1:53 pm by Schachtman
” The State of Texas filed a complaint in the United States Supreme Court, in an attempt to invoke that court’s original jurisdiction to adjudicate Texas’ complaint that it was harmed by voting procedures in four states in which Trump lost the popular vote. [read post]
27 May 2016, 1:00 am by Liam MacLean, Shepherd and Wedderburn
  It noted that the House of Lords (in R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 54) had concluded that being treated differently due to one’s status as a prisoner did not come within the ambit of Article 14 discrimination. [read post]
26 May 2016, 4:30 am by INFORRM
Against the backdrop of this coverage, the English and Welsh press protested vigorously about their being prevented from publishing information. [read post]