Search for: "Ex parte B. J. S."
Results 281 - 300
of 803
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Nov 2017, 5:45 am
Ex. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 7:30 am
Conversely, where the chief wished to defend such an action, he might consider it necessary to call the LQC as a witness to give evidence at the employment tribunal, who would then have to be cross-examined by the (possibly dismissed and so now ex-) officer’s counsel. [read post]
29 Oct 2017, 5:31 pm
The Transparency Project has a post about the judgment in Re B (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 1579 last week. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 7:36 am
By: Charles B. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 2:58 am
B. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 2:17 am
By: Charles B. [read post]
10 Sep 2017, 3:07 pm
P. 12(b)(6). [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 1:10 pm
B. [read post]
13 Aug 2017, 1:59 pm
(At 27 & 28): Mr Hutchings submitted that it was the settled understanding amongst practitioners that acceptance of an offer of temporary accommodation falling within subsection (5) of the 1996 Act never discharges the full housing duty, and drew my attention to the judgment of Lewis J in R (Brooks) v Islington London Borough Council [2016] PTSR 389 at [41] and that of Moses J in R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Sadiq (2001) 33 HLR at [36]. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 9:56 am
Doc. 69, Final J. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 8:03 am
J. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 5:32 pm
While researching inter partes review, you find that Company A’s patent covering drug B was just targeted in a petition for inter partes review. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 10:42 am
Cramer came from both J & J’s and Imerys’ counsel on the issue of counterfactual causation. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 11:33 pm
As part of the Twombly-Iqbal analysis, the court proceeds in two steps. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 5:57 am
In fact, because paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(c) plainly cover obscenity and threats, respectively, much of the speech that can be restricted due to content under the First Amendment is plainly excluded from Section 9.61.260(1)(b)’s reach, meaning that most of the speech that falls within Section 9.61.260(1)(b) is protected speech. [read post]
8 Jul 2017, 8:25 am
Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 15; Ex parte Flores, 483 S.W.3d at 639. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 10:27 am
The directives were based on programs that the FISC approved ex parte in August 2014. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 2:21 pm
Muçulmanos dos Bálcãs, simpatizantes espanhóis, franceses, ingleses e mais. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 12:33 pm
Haeger, Docket 15-1406, J. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 2:24 pm
Under Article 33(1)(b), if the parties agree, the tribunal may give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. [read post]
