Search for: "French v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 3,420
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Oct 2007, 1:42 am
Lyons, Reason's Freedom and the Dialectic of Ordered Liberty, 55 Clevland State Law Review 157-233 (2007).Frederick V. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 3:40 am
In Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurance SA and others [2010] EWHC 1941 (QB) the High Court had to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether Rome II (a regime for determining the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) applied to Homawoo's claim against GMF Assurance, a French insurance company, for damages for personal injury caused to Homawoo during a road traffic accident in France. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 8:16 am by Ingrid Wuerth
A 1781 Pennsylvania state court case against the state of Virginia, Nathan v. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 5:21 pm by MTTLR Blog Editor
by Jeff Liu , MTTLR Associate EditorLast summer, a federal district court ruled, in Tiffany v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 8:22 pm by Gilles Cuniberti
Related posts: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: the ICJ to Deliver its Judgment in the Germany v. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 11:35 pm
Contents include: Eirik Bjorge & Cameron Miles, Introduction William S Dodge, The Charming Betsy and The Paquete Habana (1804 and 1900) Michael Waibel, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v Great Britain) (1924–27) Chester Brown, Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland) (1927–28) Douglas Guilfoyle, SS Lotus (France v Turkey) (1927) Eirik Bjorge, Island of Palmas (Netherlands v United States of America) (1928) Rolf… [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 6:00 am by Ruth Levush
Most people would agree that the Supreme Court is one of the most important government institutions of the United States, due to its power of judicial review rooted in the famous Marbury v. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 5:37 am by INFORRM
In the case of CICAD v Switzerland (Judgment of 7 June 2016)(French only), the Third Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a judgment finding that an accusation of anti-semitism made by the applicant was unlawful did not violate Article 10. [read post]