Search for: "Does 1-43" Results 3301 - 3320 of 4,490
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2011, 12:14 pm by Dianne Saxe
Fletcher (1866), L.R. 1 Ex. 265, aff’d (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330 for that loss. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 8:53 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
Section 21 does not deal with counter-claims but Section 43(1) read with Section 3(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does, except when in reply to a n [read blog]
8 Oct 2011, 8:53 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
Section 21 does not deal with counter-claims but Section 43(1) read with Section 3(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does, except when in reply to a n [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:47 am by Rosalind English
The guiding principle in Scots law is Lawrie v Muir 1950 JC 19, which states that an irregularity in the method by which evidence has been obtained does not necessarily make that evidence inadmissible in a criminal prosecution [17]. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm by Contributor
Part II: Summary and Criticisms of the Advisory Panel’s Recommendations 1. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 4:37 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
§ 112, ¶ 1, states: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the same. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:53 pm by Lovechilde
That same year, Perry donated $1 million to the Governors Association, which days later channeled $1 million to Gov. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 5:07 am by Marlene Brokering
Chapter II REGISTRATION OR MATRICULATION OF THE AIRCRAFT AND ITS NATIONALITY 1. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 3:09 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
In Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court held that the Crown’s reliance on admissions made by an accused who had no access to a lawyer while he was being questioned as a detainee at a police station was a violation of his rights under ECHR, arts 6(1), (3)(c). [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 3:09 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
In Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court held that the Crown’s reliance on admissions made by an accused who had no access to a lawyer while he was being questioned as a detainee at a police station was a violation of his rights under ECHR, arts 6(1), (3)(c). [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:39 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
In Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court held that the Crown’s reliance on admissions made by an accused who had no access to a lawyer while he was being questioned as a detainee at a police station was a violation of his rights under ECHR, arts 6(1), (3)(c). [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:39 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
In Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court held that the Crown’s reliance on admissions made by an accused who had no access to a lawyer while he was being questioned as a detainee at a police station was a violation of his rights under ECHR, arts 6(1), (3)(c). [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 8:48 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
This article discusses three questions, which have emerged in the field of international arbitration and are primarily of a philosophical nature, that help us understand certain aspects of transnational legality: (1) What is the role of social conventions among international adjudicators for the development of transnational regimes? [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 1:15 am by Melina Padron
His comments were made during an interview on yesterday’s Andrew Marr show (from minute 43:15), where Cameron also said that part of the problem was to do with the judgments of the “European Court of Justice”, a court which does not (yet) make judgments on human rights. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 5:01 am by Howard Friedman
In 2010, 43 out of 700 divorce applications cited polygamy as the reason. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 7:25 am by Rebecca Tushnet
All AFL needed to show was that it raised serious Lanham Act questions and that it would likely suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction.For the §43(a)(1)(A) claim, AFL needed to show that FOH’s use of the Fujikura mark was likely to cause confusion. [read post]