Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 3121 - 3140
of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2010, 3:51 am
In Henry and Mitchell v Henry [2010] UKPC 3, the Privy Council have given further consideration to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:51 am
In Henry and Mitchell v Henry [2010] UKPC 3, the Privy Council have given further consideration to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 11:18 am
Johnson v. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 4:43 pm
Their reaction to the post is impressionistic and fleeting’ (Lord Kerr, para. 44; see also Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525, [90] Nicklin J). [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 5:13 am
This has been intensified as the Cuban intelligentsia has become more deeply embedded within institutions in and around the Caribbean, forging complex intellectual links in and around the state--links that cannot be ignored. [read post]
25 May 2012, 8:41 pm
Edlucy, Inc., CCH Business Franchise Guide ¶14,822. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 7:24 am
P’ship v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 11:21 am
(I say 'rightly or wrongly', because the central holding of those cases was not as broad as many thought at the time: see Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26, [2007] 1 AC 270, paras 86 et seq). [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 8:21 am
In this state the hose can be used. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 6:18 am
In relation to the first issue, he began by noting that the only basis upon which it could be said that the information intercepted from the claimants’ phones constituted ‘intellectual property’ as defined in section 72(5) was if it was ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’. [22] Lord Neuberger rejected the argument put forward by the Secretary of State (as an interested party) that “commercial information” should be… [read post]
15 Aug 2024, 1:01 pm
On the morning of the hearing, Kirsha Kaechele led twenty-five women dressed in navy power suits, pearls, and red lipstick into the courtroom.[28] In a blog post, the artist describes how they “moved in silent synchronicity, crossing and uncrossing their pantyhosed legs [pause], leaning forward in their navy suits [pause], peering over their tortoiseshell spectacles [pause], and applying lipstick” for two hours straight.[29] Even the judge noted their behavior in his ruling,… [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am
The court concludes that they did: para 27. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 3:18 pm
\8\ Id., para. 190(d) [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 4:32 pm
Amended Complaint ¶74, R. 23. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 3:58 pm
Thus the court said (at para. 41): “... [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
In Carter v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
In Carter v. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 12:09 am
(See State of U.P. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 2:20 pm
Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Baker v. [read post]
8 May 2017, 1:00 am
R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 15-16 February 2017. [read post]
