Search for: "Paras v. State" Results 2621 - 2640 of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2013, 12:31 pm by L. Gopika
 Justice Arnold stated that Defendants were service providers within the meaning of the 1988 Act as this question had already been settled in Dramatico v. [read post]
31 Jul 2024, 12:14 pm by Joy
Whether you are challenging a last will, or defending the validity of a last will, the outcome of Graham v. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 1:08 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in R. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:06 am by Adam Wagner
Bahta & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 – Read judgment The general rule in civil law cases is that the loser pays the winner’s legal costs, even if the case settles before trial. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 7:59 am
Para tentar entender esse vocábulo é necessário descrever os vários tipos de família existentes, e suas características específicas. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 3:51 am
I was intrigued by the recent SC decision in Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and Ors. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 6:47 am
`In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 7:18 am by SJM
The Court also found that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society under Article 8 and it makes the following interesting observation (at para.61): The Court observes that the applicant’s home has been repossessed by the State, and not by a private party whose interests in the flat would have been at stake (see Orlić, cited above, § 69). [read post]
3 May 2010, 3:18 pm by NL
Birmingham City Council v Clue [2010] EWCA Civ 460 Ms Clue was a Jamaican national. [read post]
3 May 2010, 3:18 pm by NL
Birmingham City Council v Clue [2010] EWCA Civ 460 Ms Clue was a Jamaican national. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 9:45 pm by Adam Wagner
As to when relatives can receive funding, the court was dissatisfied with the Lord Chancellor’s current guidance, and made clear that case-law stating that funding would be in “extremely unusual” or “exceptional” circumstances was too extreme (see paras 73 to 79). [read post]