Search for: "J. H.1" Results 3641 - 3660 of 4,858
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2011, 6:21 am by dnt.atheniense@gmail.com
Para o magistrado, não há no processo nenhum documento que justifique a cobrança da diferença de câmbio. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 7:12 am by Paul Jacobson
The final Regulations were issued on 1 April 2011 and differ from the draft Regulations in some important respects including the requirement to report on various issues which are highlighted in this post. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 7:51 pm
Moreover, the time afforded for internal appeal will generally be 60 days. 29 C.F.R. 2550.503-1(h)(4). [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 7:56 pm by cdw
LEXIS 671 (FL 3/24/2011) Relief denied on ten issues including: “(A) counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately question juror Tracy Robinson concerning her prior misdemeanor and active capias; (B) counsel was ineffective for failing to include juror Robinson’s resulting nondisclosure in a motion for new trial; (C) the postconviction court erred in denying Johnston’s motion to interview juror Robinson; (D) counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to… [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:17 pm
Recently, the CRCICA has brought into force the new Arbitration Rules (the “2011 Rules”) with effect from March 1, 2011, which is based upon the revised UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 2010 (with a few adaptations stemming from CRCICA’s position as an arbitral institution and an appointing authority). [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 2:25 pm by PJ Blount
(j) The amendments made by this section shall take effect on April 1, 2011. [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 8:06 am by INFORRM
If Tugendhat J is right that the threshold of substantial harm is necessary to give effect to Article 10 of the Convention, then it may be that sections 2 and 6(2) will have to be interpreted as though they incoroprated that threshold – perhaps by holding that the requirement of injury to reputation in section 2 will only be made out if there is or can be a serious (Thornton) or substanial (clause 1 of the Bill) harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. [read post]