Search for: "IN THE INTEREST OF: S. R. C. J."
Results 301 - 320
of 2,821
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2013, 3:30 am
Michael C. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 2:21 pm
In R. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 11:46 am
James Tedisco (R, C). [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 11:46 am
James Tedisco (R, C). [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 12:55 pm
Notably, the Advocate General not only points out the blatant contradictions between Neurim and the CJEU’s earlier decisions in Pharmacia (C-31/03), Yissum (C-202/05) and MIT (C-431/04) but also the inextricable inconsistency between Neurim and the CJEU’ very recent judgment in Abraxis (C-443/17). [read post]
5 Feb 2023, 7:38 pm
Nous juristes avons tendance à considérer que le rôle de la loi et de la réglementation est au cœur de l’enquête sur l’IA. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:24 pm
Sunstein, R. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 3:09 am
Aug. 16, 2013) (Zagel, J.). [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 4:03 am
It was made on the basis that the husband’s disclosure pursuant to Kent J’s orders had been late and deficient, and that the wife thus needed more time to consider the disclosed documents. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 1:26 am
The damage claimed amounts of more than EUR 475 million (plus interests). [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 8:44 am
It is interesting to note that Arnold J found that the position was different in respect of the second medical use claim. [read post]
18 May 2009, 12:05 am
R. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 11:11 pm
L. 529 *** R. [read post]
24 Jul 2010, 11:00 am
However, decision J 27/96 is concerned with R 88 EPC 1973 (R 139 EPC 2000), which applies to corrections of errors in documents filed before the EPO, whereas the [opponent] is objecting to a decision concerning a correction under R 140 EPC 2000 (R 89 EPC 1973), which applies to decisions of deciding bodies of the EPO. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 2:35 pm
Kevin J. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 6:30 am
David Armitage, Harvard University and Jennifer Pitts, University of Chicago, have co-edited C. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:34 am
On Tuesday 15 March it will hear the appeal of McDonald (by her litigation friend Duncan J McDonald) v McDonald & Ors regarding whether it is open to a court to consider whether an order would infringe the tenant’s rights under the ECHR, art 8, during a hearing of an application by a private landlord under Housing Act 1988, s 21(4), for a possession order against an assured shorthold tenant. [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:27 pm
The Union Passenger R. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
Enfin, même s’il s’agissait d’un contrat de transport, l’absence de préavis n’aurait pas été fatale, car celui-ci n’est pas nécessaire lorsque c’est le transporteur lui-même qui avise le propriétaire du bien des dommages et lorsqu’il est déjà au courant des faits qu’on lui reproche, comme c’est le cas en l’espèce. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 3:21 am
Recently, in R. v. [read post]
