Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 3341 - 3360
of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2017, 2:01 pm
Access had also taken the position that the Guidelines were flawed and indeed promoted unfairness (Reasons at para. 231). [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 5:02 am
" Haynes v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 10:04 pm
On 18 September 2013 the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) referred the question for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice (V ZB 163/12) as to whether the lis pendens-rule in Art. 27 para. 1 Brussels I Regulation does apply even if the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 22 of the Brussels I Regulation. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 4:22 am
See Roe v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 4:25 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 10:11 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 8:47 am
§ 112, ¶ 2. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 6:53 am
E, para mim, parece um problema sem solução. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 5:15 am
¶;¶ 11, 17; Opp. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 7:04 pm
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin may have added to the procedural complexity and uncertainty of Wisconsin postconviction law with its decision last week in State v. [read post]
2 May 2021, 5:23 pm
Ct), at para. [read post]
28 May 2010, 5:38 am
As the European Court of Human Rights put it in Z v Finland (1997) 25 EHRR 371, para 95: Respecting the confidentiality of health data is a vital principle in the legal system of all the contracting parties to the Convention. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 1:16 pm
Ms Ballard made the point before Judge Mitchell, in her grounds of appeal (para 9) and in her written submissions to this court (para 2), that the Claimant was not in breach of PD 52B 6.5. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 5:00 am
” Crucially, the Court held that the state’s obligation of disclosure in the public interest persists even in emergency situations (para 48). [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 4:00 am
That resulting reverse onus also applies in the criminal litigation context: R v Berg, 2019 ABQB 541 at para 56. [read post]
17 May 2023, 3:49 am
; see also answer ¶ 156), {**77 Misc 3d at 365}thereby affording them the opportunity to move for summary judgment on the defense or present it at trial (see DeSanctis v Laudeman, 169 AD2d 1026, 1027 [3d Dept 1991] [“although we agree that the issue was properly preserved by defendant, . [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 10:12 am
In Countrywide Financial Corp. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 2:41 pm
As stated earlier, Dr. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 2:13 am
The SEC filed an amicus brief in Tellabs Inc. v. [read post]
