Search for: "Dell v. State" Results 261 - 280 of 485
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2019, 8:47 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Dell Canada Inc., which was the first significant authority that the majority based its decision in. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 2:00 am by Stephanie Figueroa
Reyes: Defining Prosecutorial Misconduct - This post outlines United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2024, 3:04 am by Giles Peaker
Adopting the approach of the Court of Appeal in Holland Park Management Company Limited v Dell (2023) EWCA Civ 1460, it was relevant that the clause was a ‘sweeper clause’. [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 6:41 am by Cristina Mariottini
Italia: Il Comitato ONU sui diritti delle persone con disabilità si pronuncia sulla situazione dei caregiver familiari in Italia (Bellini v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
But, by the end of the 1800s, this rationale lost currency, and by 1917 (in Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406), the House of Lords held that blasphemy protected the religious sensitivities of the individual; but the courts still confined the scope of the offence to the established Church (this was confirmed as recently as 1991 in R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429). [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 4:24 pm by INFORRM
 In her statement to the Commons, the Secretary of State said [with added links]: Protecting children is at the heart of our online harms agenda, and is key to wider Government priorities. [read post]
1 May 2014, 11:24 am
 This Kat believes that Member States are free to legislate in relation to exceptions or limitations to the right of adaptation, but these must be intended narrowly, ie as limited to what can be considered as pure adaptations, not transformative uses of a work that nonetheless also involve its simple reproduction.For instance, while it is arguable that creating a play from a novel may fall exclusively within the scope of the right of adaptation, it may be more… [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 3:53 am
Nowhere in the complaint does the plaintiff allege, at a minimum, conduct by the college "acting under color of law which deprived the injured party of a right, privilege or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution or the laws of the United States" (DiPalma v Phelan, 81 NY2d 754, 756; see Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 NY2d 152, 158; Moghimzadeh v College of St. [read post]