Search for: "Does 1-41" Results 3601 - 3620 of 4,619
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm by Graeme Hall
SA (Iranian Arabs-no general risk) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 41 (IAC) (10 February 2011): Upper Tribunal: Being Iranian Arab does not itself generate risk of persecution upon return to Iran. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 11:47 am by John P. Ahlers
Dec. 4, 2007), for the proposition that expert testimony that does not adequately identify the critical path should be excluded. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 1:59 am
"  Table 1 summarizes cheeses and cheese types subject to the 60-day aging rule.Cheese and Cheese Products in the US (adapted from The American Cheese Society) Application o [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am by The Legal Blog
Union of India & Others AIR 1981 SC 844, this court observed that "public interest litigation is part of the process of participative justice and `standing' in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps".41. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 8:38 pm by Stu Ellis
  What does the “digital divide” say about rural Americans? [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 5:32 am by Rosalind English
This was rejected as inconsistent with the authorities, and in particular with the principle that there is no “hard-edged or bright-line rule”,  EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41, [2009] 1 AC 1159. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 9:14 am by The Legal Blog
The learned Judges said that a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 6:36 am by Mandelman
Beverly Hills, CA, US 90210 Telephone: +1 (310) 275-6664 Fax: +1 (310) 550-1856 aldenlaw@yahoo.com Dennis Moore, Attorney at Law 5041 La Mart Dr., Ste 230 Riverside, CA 92507 (951) 660-5289 Fax: (951) 340-3276 Mandelman out. ~~~ Filed 1/27/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE CLAUDIA JACQUELINE ACEVES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 1:28 pm by Jim Eagar
  Without these changes, any amount over $1 million passed at death was taxed at a starting rate of 41% and could rise to a rate as high as 60%. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 11:11 am by The Legal Blog
It was argued that in contrast to Sections 4 and 6, Section 48(1) of the Act does not contemplate issue of any notification and withdrawal from the acquisition can be done by an order simpliciter. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am by Tana Fye
              The existing Indian family exception is a judicially created doctrine holding that the ICWA does not apply to those Indian children who have never been a member of an Indian home or culture and probably never would be.[14]  Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians[15], many states adopted the existing Indian family exception. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am by Tana Fye
              The existing Indian family exception is a judicially created doctrine holding that the ICWA does not apply to those Indian children who have never been a member of an Indian home or culture and probably never would be.[14]  Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians[15], many states adopted the existing Indian family exception. [read post]