Search for: "State v. English"
Results 2681 - 2700
of 6,457
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Connecticut and Lawrence v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 1:00 am
R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 15-16 February 2017. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:00 am
We are discussing the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Janus Capital v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 5:08 am
There is no “federal common law,” and adopting English common law would have been up to the individual states. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 6:37 am
Two recent English cases, Karen Millen v Karen Millen Fashions Ltd and Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd v Sky Plc, indirectly consider Declarations of Non-Infringement in relation to Trade Marks. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 9:30 pm
In Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 2:11 pm
Even Justice Scalia does this often, for instance in the Second Amendment case, Heller v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 5:14 am
As such, PRS and QA both have a close and genuine link to their home state. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 12:00 am
Toys R Us, Inc. and Taylor v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 12:00 am
Toys R Us, Inc. and Taylor v. [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 4:36 am
In EEOC v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 8:41 am
Further, in NDMC v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 2:29 am
The applicable law to govern Innovia's breach of confidence claim was the English law. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 7:20 am
A sweet start to the statement of facts in United States v. [read post]
15 May 2012, 8:45 am
Latif v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 3:20 pm
207/10Orifarm A/S and Orifarm Supply A/S v Merck & Co. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 6:45 pm
The court may declare ineligible to act as fiduciary a person unable to read and write the English language. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 9:04 am
See United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 2:53 am
The application was refused on two grounds: first, "it is not, in the state of English law now, arguable that the unqualified right to possession by a landlord is incompatible with Article 8; or indeed, in the light of Sheffield CC v Smart [2002] HLR 34, with Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention" (at [8]); second, the claim was not arguable on the facts of the case in which it appeared to the local authority that the property was vacant, and so could not be… [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 2:53 am
The application was refused on two grounds: first, "it is not, in the state of English law now, arguable that the unqualified right to possession by a landlord is incompatible with Article 8; or indeed, in the light of Sheffield CC v Smart [2002] HLR 34, with Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention" (at [8]); second, the claim was not arguable on the facts of the case in which it appeared to the local authority that the property was vacant, and so could not be… [read post]
