Search for: "Clair v. Clair"
Results 261 - 280
of 896
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2024, 6:41 am
Following the opinion announcements, the court will hear oral arguments in Fischer v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 6:27 am
In Chaney v. [read post]
3 Nov 2014, 4:39 am
At ten a.m. today the Court will hear oral arguments in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 8:40 am
Headley v. [read post]
12 Jan 2019, 9:01 am
Hearing: December 20, 2018; Decision: January 4, 2019 The appellant in person; Claire Darwin, instructed by in-house solicitor, for the respondent. [read post]
24 May 2009, 12:05 pm
V. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 1:35 am
The Supreme Court will determine whether the paper constitutes a ‘plan or program’ that falls within Directive 2001/42/EC arts 2 and 3 as transposed by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, and whether the issues are acte clair or should be referred to the CJEU. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 11:21 am
Clair v. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 7:00 am
In Jane Doe No. 1 v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 10:47 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Financial Oversight and Management Bd. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 12:36 pm
Clair v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 1:45 am
The Supreme Court is therefore satisfied to the standard of acte clair that the EU principle of absolute res judicata does not apply. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 5:55 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the... [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 1:17 am
Readers interested in immigration cases involving mental and physical health must also read the recent ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium (App No. 41738/10), 13 Dec 2016, which transforms the Article 3 case law in relation to the removal of seriously ill persons, and departs from the long-standing and highly restrictive approach in N v UK (App No. [read post]
10 May 2010, 8:50 am
She gave a bouncy and enthusiastic explanation of both the entitlement of employees to compensation and the means of its assessment in two recent cases known to readers of this weblog, Kelly & Chiu v GE (the Myoview case) and Shanks v Unilever. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 10:42 am
V. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 2:06 pm
” Kyllo v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 5:30 am
" David cites an excellent recent article by Claire Hill and Brett McDonnell on the subject, Stone v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 12:42 pm
Y. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 9:45 am
Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. [read post]
