Search for: "S. v. D."
Results 221 - 240
of 68,664
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2010, 2:25 am
Regina v Lee [2010] EWCA Crim 1404; [2010] WLR (D) 160 “The offence under s 85(5)(b) of the Medicines Act 1968 of selling or supplying a medicinal product which was misleadingly labelled or marked in respect of the nature or quality of the product, where such sale or supply was done by a person ‘in the course of a business carried on by him’, could not be committed by a person who was merely employed or engaged by the business which carried out the sale… [read post]
6 Aug 2023, 2:08 pm
[France][Petition granted][ Mother’s motion for reconsideration denied] Peyre v McGarey, 2023 WL 4351544 (D. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 6:00 am
He later decides that for convenience, he’d like […] The post Authorized User v. [read post]
11 Oct 2006, 5:30 am
[S]ee Werner v. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 2:17 pm
Securities Experts Roundtable The Expert’s Examiner Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 3:29 pm
S. 48, 49, 57 (1964) (corporate tax records); McPhaul v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 2:10 am
British Airways plc v Unite the Union [2010] WLR (D) 131 “When, following a ballot the result of which supported strike action, one was asking whether a union and its members were protected from a claim in tort under certain provisions within Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the conditions contained in s 231 of the Act as to the provision by the union of information to its members concerning the results of the ballot… [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 8:41 am
I'm looking forward to the Supreme Court's ruling in Elonis v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 2:21 am
Regina v A and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1622; [2010] WLR (D) 194 “Where a murder was committed by a number of defendants acting together recent authority did not establish that the secondary party’s foresight of the principal’s intention was never relevant. [read post]
3 May 2012, 2:07 am
DR v NCB – Nordisk Copyright Bureau (Case C-510/10); [2012] WLR (D) 127 “The exception in article 5(2)(d) of and Preamble 41 to Directive 2001/29 which permitted a broadcaster to use their own facilities or ‘those of a person acting on behalf of and under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’ to reproduce works by way of ephemeral recordings without the author’s consent, entitled a broadcaster to use a third party to… [read post]
11 Nov 2017, 11:00 am
Supp. 3d 665, 704–705 (D. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 10:24 pm
This case involves a dispute regarding a 2001 option to purchase 60.419 acres of farmland. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 3:52 am
Regina (SO) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (The Children’s Society intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 634 1101; [2010] WLR (D) 257 “Local authorities enjoyed, by virtue of s 23C(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989, the power to accommodate a person who had formerly been a child in care and was therefore a former ‘relevant child’ within s 23A of the Act, and a local authority was not entitled, when considering whether the welfare of… [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 10:42 am
Lis v. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 2:50 pm
In Edwin Cheek v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 8:10 am
In Cisneros v Lopez, 2016 WL 7428197 (D. [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 9:17 pm
Noonan -- Another district court (actually, a magistrate judge) has succumbed to the siren song, or drank the Kool-Aid, or (fill in your favorite Apocalyptic metaphor here) of applying the Supreme Court's Mayo v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 8:59 pm
Vikram D. [read post]
7 May 2010, 2:17 am
Regina v Y (A) [2010] EWCA Crim 762; [2010] WLR (D) 112 “Where a person possessed information likely to be useful to a terrorist within the meaning of s 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the fact that the possession was for the purpose of lawful self-defence which was solely defensive was capable of amounting to the statutory defence of reasonable excuse under s 58(3) of the 2000 Act, to an offence of possession under s 58(1). [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 6:00 am
Failure to Satisfy the APA’s Arbitrary and Capricious Standard Next, the court addressed whether the department's decision to remove 3-D gun blueprints from the USML was “arbitrary and capricious. [read post]
