Search for: "Bear v. State"
Results 3641 - 3660
of 14,844
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2018, 7:49 am
Yaser Hamdi was an alleged foreign fighter for the Afghan Taliban caught by local U.S. allies in Afghanistan who claimed that he was an arms-bearing fighter. [read post]
11 Oct 2024, 4:32 am
The post New Book on Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs, Part V appeared first on Reason.com. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 8:55 am
In Turner v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 5:38 am
The Microsoft v. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 7:38 am
Furnes v. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 3:30 am
Forrester v. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:36 pm
Gippetti v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 3:07 pm
V. [read post]
16 Nov 2021, 2:10 am
The relevant provision of the New York Convention – article V(1)(a) – can be found in section 103(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act, and states that “the recognition or enforcement of the award may be refused if the person against whom it is invoked proves (…) that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 2:00 am
The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 3:09 am
Analysis: The United States Supreme Court held in Sosa v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 3:47 pm
CAAF's new opinion in United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 1:45 am
Such evidence should instead be evaluated in the same way as any evidence of breach of an earlier assurance given to the UK: that is, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that cogent evidence is needed to rebut the presumption of compliance. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 11:38 am
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Walker v. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 8:23 pm
PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 1:30 am
Simpkins v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 1:30 am
Shultz v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 1:30 am
Rudd v. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 3:00 am
Averitte v. [read post]
16 Dec 2022, 7:25 am
Before examining the Court of Appeal’s decision, it is important to bear in mind that s 303(1) of the Act states as follows: “If a bankrupt or any of his creditors or any other person is dissatisfied by any act, omission or decision of a trustee of the bankrupt’s estate, he may apply to the court; and on such an application the court may confirm, reverse or modify any act or decision of the trustee, may give him directions or may make such other order it thinks… [read post]
