Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 2801 - 2820
of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2010, 10:05 am
Law Lessons from MARY MASCUILLO V. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 4:00 am
Edward [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014, at para. [read post]
30 Jul 2022, 7:22 am
The Commission Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 (point 9 of Annex IV to Form V) does not have a bearing on this decision as it can only implement but not modify the Regulation (para. 73). [read post]
11 May 2011, 4:54 am
State Patent Bureau of the Republic of Lithuania (Kluwer Patent Blog) Spain: Modification of EP translations (2) – Supreme Court grants fourth appeal, filed again by Pfizer: EP0325571 (PatLit) US: Federal Trade Commission issues report on reverse settlement agreements in FY2010 (Patent Docs) (Orange Book Blog) (FDA Law Blog) US: FTC posts friendly reminder to please send them your ANDA litigation settlement agreements (Orange Book Blog) US: Billups-Rothenberg v. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 9:48 am
No. 7205/02), McCann v UK (App. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 10:39 am
In Abraxis v. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 10:50 am
Para 3.14 of Waltham’s policy did not amount to using the benefit cap as a proxy. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 5:00 am
(citing Jaimez v. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:35 pm
Riley v Murray, then, sits uncomfortably with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Miller v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926, which was handed down on the same day. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 2:26 pm
Ultimately the case turned on whether the interference was proportionate, and the Secretary’s decision had failed the requirements of the proportionality principle as summarised in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 5:48 am
Wang stated that he was willing to answer questions, and he signed the waiver form. . . . [read post]
22 May 2022, 4:00 am
Stirling, 2008 SCC 10, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 272, at paras. 10-11; R. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 7:20 am
¶ 45.) [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 11:37 am
Practice Guide: Real Property Transactions (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 4:263 (CAPROP Ch. 4-D); Annot., Modification of sealed instrument by subsequent parol agreement (1928) 55 A.L.R. 685; Cal. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm
On Ground 6, the GP’s letter stated that she was ‘fairly vulnerable’, not ‘very vulnerable. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm
This was sufficient in itself to distinguish this case from Hall v Wandsworth LBC, Carter v Wandsworth LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1740; [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 4:35 am
Hall v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 9:18 pm
Specifically, the Marlo court stated the following:[¶] ‘Plaintiffs evidence is essentially individual testimony and an exemption policy. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 2:00 am
French courts give conflicting answers in preliminary injunction proceedings: Actavis v Novartis (EPLAW) Vytorin (Ezetimibe and Simvastatin) – US: Schering files patent infringement complaint against Actavis in response to Para IV certification (Patent Docs) [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 5:03 pm
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, R. v. [read post]
