Search for: "B. v. S."
Results 201 - 220
of 57,848
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2010, 1:49 am
Regina v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082; [2010] WLR (D) 141 “Material contained in police crime reports that unproven allegations had been made against a person who was someone other than a defendant, or that that person had been investigated in respect of an offence, would rarely be of substantial probative value to an issue at trial sufficient to render it admissible as evidence of bad character against that person pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice… [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 12:33 am
Two years later, in Minor v. [read post]
12 Aug 2007, 7:39 am
" Defendants therefore explain that, although (b)(2) does not have a "predominance" requirement, (b)(2) does require that the class's claims be "cohesive. [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 9:42 am
Here's the abstract: Das völkergewohnheitsrechtliche Interventionsverbot ist seit jeher ein unverzichtbares Element des internationalen Friedenssicherungssystems. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 1:44 pm
A Very Brief History of 11(b)Without entering into an in-depth discussion of the historical case law of associated with s. 11(b), or analyzing the new changes, it is important to note that R. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 8:35 pm
" In Global-Tech v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 7:30 am
Section 8.01-335(B) permits reinstatement of a plaintiff’s case within one year of its dismissal under that statute for three-plus years of inactivity. [read post]
7 May 2019, 2:00 am
According to the Court, that’s not the end of the story because in Federal Housing Administration v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:29 pm
This morning the Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 2:48 am
Jamie S. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 1:13 pm
The new case, Genesis B. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 8:17 am
State v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 6:05 am
Indian Industries d/b/a Escalade Sports v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 1:31 pm
" An excerpt from Steve's post: I think Gordon's got an excellent point. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 2:22 pm
Today’s Decision of the Day is Vartanian v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 10:47 am
On Monday, the Court issued its decision in CIGNA Corp. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:00 pm
The decision does not break new ground, but instead applies the Court’s precedent in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 9:39 am
Aspinall's Club Ltd v Al-Zayat (No 2) [2008] EWHC 2101 (Comm); [2008] WLR (D) 301 “A fixed-term deferral or postponement of a sum owed to a gaming club by a patron amounted to the providing or allowing of credit contrary to s 16(1)(b) of the Gaming Act 1968. [read post]
