Search for: "Grand v. Hope" Results 241 - 260 of 862
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2019, 2:28 pm by Michael Lowe
“(v) Section 111(b), relating to assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees using a deadly or dangerous weapon or inflicting bodily injury. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 8:16 am by Bruce Zagaris and Zarine Kharazian
Plachta reported on the ECtHR decision in Krombach/Bamerski and the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s decision (Nait-Liman v. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 8:16 am by Bruce Zagaris and Zarine Kharazian
Plachta reported on the ECtHR decision in Krombach/Bamerski and the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s decision (Nait-Liman v. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 2:38 pm
  One hopes that the Brazilian state will conduct this program with a high degree of transparency, and that they devote some effort to capacity building and technical assistance--both within the state and among enterprises. [read post]
24 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed at The Hill, Rachel VanLandingham urges the justices to review Larrabee v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 8:55 am by Laurence H. Tribe
In a recent opinion piece, I argued that the text and structure of the Constitution, a serious commitment to the rule of law and plain good sense combine to preclude a rigid policy of “delaying any indictment of a president for crimes committed in winning the presidency. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 6:58 pm
His prediction that Mexico can spend within its means without the need for austerity programs, which he correctly viewed as unhelpful, and that the fruits of anti-corruption efforts would significantly increase revenue might reflect more hope than realism. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 12:00 pm by admin
The Stahl court cited Commonwealth v. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
FIL Ltd v Fidelis Underwriting [2018] EWHC 1097, High Court of England and Wales (May 2018)The use of FIDELIS for specialty insurance and reinsurance services does not infringe FIDELITY for financial services, holds Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
13 Oct 2018, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
Prior to a conviction being deemed spent, a convicted person has no reasonable expectation of privacy: NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC v The Information Commissioner [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (“NT”), per Warby J at [166]. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:00 am by Hilary Hurd
The 2014 terrorist attack at the Kunming railway station did not amount to hostilities that might arguably trigger international humanitarian law rather than IHRL, as the attacks were not characterized by sufficient “intensity and organization” under Prosecutor v. [read post]