Search for: "C. v. A."
Results 341 - 360
of 62,033
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2018, 5:30 am
§ 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague in the light of Sessions v. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 7:36 am
Here are updated materials in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 10:59 am
C. [read post]
24 May 2012, 1:54 am
I v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid (Case C-348/09); [2012] WLR (D) 157 “An individual who had committed an offence, including those referred to in article 83(1)FEU of the FEU Treaty, such as the sexual exploitation of children, could be regarded as constituting a particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and therefore could be excluded from a host member state on ‘imperative ground[s] of public security’ pursuant to… [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 3:41 am
Registration of the earlier trade mark in the member state concerned did not constitute a prerequisite for the running of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence prescribed in article 9(1).” (Case C-482/09); [2011] WLR (D) 279 WLR Daily, 22nd September 2011 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 4:26 am
Ziolkowski and others v Land Berlin (Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht intervening); (Joined Cases C-424/10 and C-425/10); [2011] WLR (D) 387 “A Union citizen who had been resident for more than five years in the territory of the host member state on the sole basis of the national law of that member state could not be regarded as having acquired the right of permanent residence pursuant to article 16(1) of… [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 8:49 am
Council v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 4:34 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 3:00 am
The Story of Bivens v. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 1:13 pm
The Court of Justice in Case C-70/06 Commission v. [read post]
19 May 2020, 2:13 pm
Visita nuestro Observatorio COVID-19 en Puerto Rico La Cámara de Representantes aprobó el Proyecto de la Cámara 2476 para enmendar la regla 112, 151 y 192.1 de las Reglas de Procedimiento Criminal para atemperar el ordenamiento local a la doctrina que se estableció el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos en Ramos v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 3:57 am
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp v Skatteverket (Case C-540/09); [2011] WLR (D) 103 “The exemption from VAT laid down in article 13B(d)(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC applied to services supplied by a credit institution, for consideration, in the form of an underwriting guarantee to a company wishing to issue shares, where under that guarantee the credit institution undertook to acquire any shares which were not subscribed within… [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 2:39 am
Rahman and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Case C-83/11; [2012] WLR (D) 259 “Member states of the EU were not required to grant every application for entry or residence submitted by family members of a Union citizen who did not fall under the definition in article 2(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 , even if they showed, in accordance with article 10(2), that they were dependants of that citizen. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 3:05 am
Claes v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation) (Joined Cases C-235/10–239/10); [2011] WLR (D) 74 “Articles 1 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC, concerning the procedure to be adopted upon collective redundancies, applied to the termination of the activities of an employing establishment as a result of a judicial winding up on grounds of insolvency, even where, in the event of such a termination, national legislation provided for the termination of employment… [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 10:13 am
In its judgment in Case C-73/08 Nicolas Bressol and others v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 7:00 am
Supreme Court oral arguments in Chiafalo v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 8:16 am
Young v. [read post]
24 Mar 2021, 5:38 am
You should be able to listen live to the oral arguments on the C-Span website. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 7:27 pm
Section 1512(c) in... [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 2:05 pm
Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hamer v. [read post]
