Search for: "Paras v. State" Results 2461 - 2480 of 6,183
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2016, 4:25 am by Stephen Pitel
  She refers to circumstances in which “the defendant’s breach of contract and his tort are indissociable” (para 95; emphasis in original) and states that this PCF “only provides jurisdiction over claims where the defendant’s liability in tort flows immediately from the defendant’s own contractual obligations” (para. 90). [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 7:18 pm
Mission Statement: The Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE) is a non-profit, non-political organization incorporated in the state of Maryland in 1990. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 4:04 pm by Donald Clarke
It’s like saying that the Supreme Court could have avoided ruling on the constitutionality of segregation by simply declining to hear Brown v. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 4:00 am by Alan Macek
Apotex Inc., 2016 FC 344 at para 13). [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 3:26 am
Besides yesterday's Opinion of AG Wathelet, another recent example that comes to mind is the Opinion of AG Szpunar in Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, C-174/15 [the 'e-lending case', currently in progress and noted here], in which he clearly stated [para 34] that "the principal objective of copyright is to safeguard the interests of authors".Secondly, should the CJEU follow the Opinion of AG… [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 4:04 am
    The rules for the operation of the injunctions for which the Member States must provide are a matter for national law, but those measures must be effective and dissuasive;3. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 9:55 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
” The extracted para was para 13 and it was not from Indian Oil Corpn. but was from v. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 9:55 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
” The extracted para was para 13 and it was not from Indian Oil Corpn. but was from v. [read post]
26 Jun 2016, 11:37 am
”The Court states (para. 18) that-- “Read in isolation, that sentence could be interpreted as meaning that the licensee cannot, if the licence has not been entered in the Register, rely on the rights conferred by that licence vis-à-vis third parties, including the party infringing the trade mark. [read post]