Search for: "Paras v. State" Results 2201 - 2220 of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2021, 12:18 pm by familoo
(para 14) I’ll draw out four particular elements of our case here : Firstly, the public interest in the case. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 6:07 am by Harrison Blank
United States (July 3, 2024) Adam Klasfeld and Paras Shah, Divided Supreme Court Hands Trump Broad Immunity for Prosecution for Official Acts (July 1, 2024) Moody v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 8:32 am
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law 32,221. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 9:48 pm by MacIsaac
  As Major J. stated in Athey: the defendant is liable for the additional damage but not the pre-existing damage: at para. 35. [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:45 am by Barry Sookman
Louis Vuitton Malletier SA et al., Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, at paras. 112-120; L’Oreal v. eBay, Case C-324/09, at paras. 111-17. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 4:30 am by Guest Blogger
In the context of claims for malicious prosecution, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated in Oniel v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 5:14 am
(Patent Docs) (Holman's Biotech IP Blog) US: AMP v USPTO after Bilski v Kappos (Patent Docs) US: NORD Chair/HP&M Director presents opening testimony at first ever FDA orphan drug hearing (FDA Law Blog) US: Celsis files patent infringement complaint against CellzDirect and Invitrogen over pooled multi-cryopreserved hepatocyte products (Patent Docs)   Products Astelin (Azelastine) – US: Zydus admits infringing Meda’s Astelin patent, agrees not to market… [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 6:03 pm by Duncan
(Patent Docs) (Holman’s Biotech IP Blog) US: AMP v USPTO after Bilski v Kappos (Patent Docs) US: NORD Chair/HP&M Director presents opening testimony at first ever FDA orphan drug hearing (FDA Law Blog) US: Celsis files patent infringement complaint against CellzDirect and Invitrogen over pooled multi-cryopreserved hepatocyte products (Patent Docs)   Products Astelin (Azelastine) – US: Zydus admits infringing Meda’s Astelin patent, agrees not to market… [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 3:30 pm by Rachit Buch
The Court reiterated a number of principles: that A1P1 protects current possessions, not an entitlement to future ones (Marckx v Belgium para 50); that a professional’s business clientele could amount to a possession (Van Marle); that revocation of a license or permit may be an interference with a possession (Fredin v Sweden); and that goodwill may be an element in the valuation of a professional license (paras 88-93). [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 11:03 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
While narrating the facts, at Para 3, the court stated: “Clause 27 and 28 provided for arbitration and the governing law agreed to was the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:30 am
The California Court of Appeals opinion in People v. [read post]