Search for: "English v. English"
Results 3801 - 3820
of 11,209
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
Citations in the post are to that list and to paragraph numbers in the Communication.Index to Issues and AnnexPresumed illegalDue process at sourceLegal competence v practical competenceDue process v quality standardsManifest illegality v contextual informationIllegality on the face of the statute v prosecutorial discretionOffline v onlineMore is better, faster is bestLiability shield v removal toolNational laws v coherent EU… [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
Citations in the post are to that list and to paragraph numbers in the Communication.Index to Issues and AnnexPresumed illegalDue process at sourceLegal competence v practical competenceDue process v quality standardsManifest illegality v contextual informationIllegality on the face of the statute v prosecutorial discretionOffline v onlineMore is better, faster is bestLiability shield v removal toolNational laws v coherent EU… [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 3:00 am
Steve does his best to describe what the company’s proposing in plain English. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 11:40 am
So holds the 9th Circuit, in today’s decision in Makah Indian Tribe v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 3:00 am
Deputy Assistant Secretaries of State Patrick Murphy and Marc Storella will testify alongside V. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 2:55 am
Bork’s opponents were critical of his opinions about the Supreme Court’s Roe v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 1:43 am
It was common ground between the parties that under California law extrinsic evidence is admissible as an aid to interpretation to a greater extent than under English law. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 12:01 am
Speakers include academics and practitioners (Massimo V. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 8:17 am
But not every issue is an easy one, which is what the courts are for.The case is Moy v. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 1:25 pm
, Turner v. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 7:32 am
Adair reinforced the “very low” threshold for plausibility adopted by the English courts (see Carr J in Actavis v Lilly [2015] EWHC 3294) – this was different to the “fair expectation of success” in the inventive step inquiry. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 4:00 am
Durham v. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 2:45 am
Both s 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the 1978 Act which confer immunity in English law were held to be incompatible with the ECHR, art 6 and also the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 2:22 am
The first issue relates to how its conclusions should be approached in the context of similar environmental litigation against English-based multinational in Okpabi v Shell. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 11:19 am
” The Board routinely takes judicial notice of dictionary definitions when supplied with a copy of the definition, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. [read post]
15 Oct 2017, 7:59 pm
In Amgen v Sarnofi/Regeneron Fed Cir 2017–1480 (Oct 5 2017), Amgen (Repatha) and Sanofi (Praluent) had competing claims to antibodies binding to PCSK9 to lower high LDL levels. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 5:01 am
The decision, R. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 9:22 am
The post includes the 11 October 2017 Newsletter of the Special Rapporteaur (with links) along with the "Draft Guidelines" in English, Francais and Español. [read post]
