Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 2281 - 2300
of 6,183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2017, 5:08 pm
In A.T. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 2:01 pm
Access had also taken the position that the Guidelines were flawed and indeed promoted unfairness (Reasons at para. 231). [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 2:01 pm
Access had also taken the position that the Guidelines were flawed and indeed promoted unfairness (Reasons at para. 231). [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 4:51 am
Guido Kucsko also cautioned that OTK v. [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 3:34 am
[¶] As the operating agreement explicitly provides that a member’s participating interest may be reduced proportionally if the member fails to make a requested additional capital contribution, defendants were acting in accordance with the agreement when they issued their “Notice of Call for Additional Capital Contributions from Members. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 4:07 pm
CG v. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 11:25 pm
In referring the question on Art 3(a) as to what was required for a product to be protected by a basic patent, he stated that he was “encouraged by what the [CJEU] said in Actavis v Sanofi and Actavis v Boehringer to believe that there is a realistic prospect of the Court providing further and better guidance to that which it has hitherto provided” (para 91). [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 1:01 pm
¶27): Bottom v. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 4:51 am
This was - in a nutshell - the issue on which the Polish Supreme Court had sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in OTK v SFP, C-367/15.This morning, contrary to the earlier Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, the CJEU answered in the negative, holding that [para 28] "the fact that Directive 2004/48 does not entail an obligation on the Member States to provide for ‘punitive’ damages… [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 2:14 pm
The question, in large part, was the significance of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council; Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2016] AC 811, at paras 78 and 79 “78. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 10:09 am
LP v. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 10:09 am
LP v. [read post]
22 Jan 2017, 6:02 pm
No. 899 at para 51 and Halley v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 1:28 pm
Marie-Andree Weiss of The 1709 Blog discusses the Paramount Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 7:28 am
In brief, the case of R v Egan [1992] 4 All ER 470 had stated (without the court having heard full argument) that the previous case of R v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 legitimised two approaches to defining ‘substantial’ in the context of diminished responsibility. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 7:27 pm
L.W. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 6:34 pm
The presumption of diminished responsibility of youth in murder sentencing under Canadian law and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA): the case of R. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 4:41 pm
At the Hearing: Arguments on Behalf of the State of Romania The Romanian agents, Ms. [read post]
15 Jan 2017, 5:42 pm
Amselem and the infamous “ghet” case in Bruker v. [read post]
14 Jan 2017, 5:10 am
Descarga el documento: Soto-Cintrón et al v. [read post]
