Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 3401 - 3420
of 6,183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2013, 4:03 am
These elements have been largely endorsed by higher courts, such as by the UK Supreme Court in RB v Secretary of State for the Home Department and OO v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 10. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 4:39 pm
In Norman v. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 4:00 am
CARTER v. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 8:24 am
Similarly, the worth of the evidence provided by an e-record cannot be assessed without evidence as to the state of records management of the ERMS in which the e-record is stored. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 5:49 am
Volkman, supra (quoting State v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 10:57 am
Kennedy referred in Roper v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 8:43 am
United States of America, et al., U.S.D.C. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 7:57 am
Dkt. 15 at ¶ 11(h). [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 4:10 am
(para. 33) The Committee states that it “does not consider itself entitled to concede any jurisdiction on the part of the Federal Court to interfere in the judicial conduct proceedings of an inquiry committee or the Council” (para. 35). [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]
19 Nov 2013, 5:57 pm
See Apple Inc. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 11:24 am
Id. at ¶ 47. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 4:08 pm
¶ 9). [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 4:56 am
Criminal Complaint ¶ 8. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:26 am
R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, R (Heathrow Hub Limited & Anor) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, and R (Buckinghamshire County Council & Ors) v The Secretary of State for Transport, heard 15 – 16 October 2013. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 9:42 am
State, 2013 WY 107, ¶ 21, 309 P.3d 809 (Wyo. 2013) (emphasis supplied). [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 7:27 am
Heinz, at para. 28. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 9:00 am
The CJEU rows back a little from this precipice however,at paras 42 to 43, where probabilities and logic ease the burden of proof]. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:19 pm
This in particular since “the public retains only an imperfect memory of the marks registered in the Member States or of Community marks ... [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:09 pm
Dist. v. [read post]
