Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 3841 - 3860
of 6,122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2012, 4:11 am
State v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 2:13 am
SOCAN, SOCAN v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 2:13 am
SOCAN, SOCAN v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 7:56 am
" (citing United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
Long, et al., 2008-1 USTC ¶ 50,183 (E.D. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 8:39 am
Hansen In RealPro, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 1:41 am
Granite State, supra, 76 F.3d at 1030-31. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 11:33 am
It is not so easy to separate out the content of the rights from the application of the margin of appreciation; for example the margin of appreciation may be central to determination whether a state owes a positive obligation under Article 8(1) – see Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 36, para. [75] – or whether it has infringed the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) – see Ashingdane v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 528,… [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 7:12 am
As was held in Rosvold v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 12:18 pm
Rix LJ found it significant Campbell and others v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 8:41 am
In Sotelo v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 5:21 am
This decision, Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11 (discussed here), found that s.29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, which had been in operation for the past 36 years having been inserted by s.5 of the Criminal Law Act 1976, was contrary to the Constitution. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 8:52 am
In particular, a scheme whereby a prisoner was compelled to pay half the money received from his family to the State was held to fall within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to states under A1P1 (Laduna v Slovakia, ECtHR, judgment of 13 December 2011) [46]. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 3:05 pm
The June 27, 2012, decision in Minn-Chem, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
In relation to control, no material difference as regards the position of the state. 15.07: Thomas de la Mare QC takes the Court through the cases of Barnado and Mallin v Clark. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 1:38 pm
See Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 10:40 pm
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Cowbell (see, eg para 10) confirms the adoption of the European “global appreciation” approach in Sabel V Puma, in principle, as the basis for applying the local infringement test, so there is clearance from the SCA to use the European approach.The upshot of all of this is that a formulaic approach has been developed in Europe and is well applied, most notably by the Community Trade Mark Office. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 10:10 am
There are some very nice and straightforward clarifications in the recent Federal Court decision inWarman v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 5:27 am
See e.g., Shugarman Surgical Supply, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 3:28 am
Para 8 of the CCI order states that “[t]he amount of penalty determined in case of different entities must...be deposited within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order”. [read post]
