Search for: "Doe VI"
Results 3881 - 3900
of 5,650
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2012, 7:17 am
It is conceded that prong (i)-the opposition clause- does not apply here. [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:14 am
The Panel noted the fact that other people and entities make use of the term “faci” in various contexts does not by itself legitimize Respondent’s activities vis-à-vis this Domain Name. [read post]
20 May 2012, 11:47 pm
This peculiar feature gave Greece much more leeway vis-à-vis the bondholders, as Greece could modify its law and by doing so directly impact the terms of the debt. [read post]
20 May 2012, 6:09 am
Like the heated question of whether a non-entrenchment clause could be dug into our law to protect UK parliamentary sovereignty, this one wasn’t about law, or even constitutional theory; it was essentially about differing ideological positions vis a vis judicial power. [read post]
18 May 2012, 12:52 pm
In the earlier Brazil — Desiccated Coconut case, the Appellate Body found that the meaning of ‘this Agreement’ in Article 32.3 of the SCM Agreement refers to the SCM Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994. [read post]
18 May 2012, 10:14 am
Venable believes that these requirements violate Article VI, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution, because they neither punish fraud nor preserve ballot box purity.1 According to Venable, these statutory requirements merely benefit political parties, which is not a legitimate governmental function. [read post]
17 May 2012, 1:36 pm
These issues include, but are not limited to, educating IRS employees about whistleblower provisions, statutes of limitations vis-à-vis awards, the inefficiency of the Whistleblower Executive Board, and the continued delays in providing the whistleblower report for fiscal year 2011 to the GAO. [read post]
17 May 2012, 9:41 am
The end of school does not bring an end to the damage done by years of harassment. [read post]
17 May 2012, 8:18 am
This posting does not intend to step into the debate on this - the truth is that both sides to the debate have very valid arguments. [read post]
16 May 2012, 8:54 am
Part VI discusses the possible criticism of the cheapest cost avoider test. [read post]
16 May 2012, 7:31 am
So a provision that does no harm, well, does no harm. [read post]
14 May 2012, 1:40 pm
Others argue, however, that IHRL is displaced in such a case, via lex specialis, by the law of armed conflict in the NIAC setting (and then we can have debate about the best understanding of what the law of armed conflict permits or requires vis-a-vis procedures for detention in a NIAC). [read post]
14 May 2012, 1:09 pm
” In its post, China Hearsay sets out exactly how this deal can be realized and the risks/uncertainties in a deal like this, involving as it does VIEs. [read post]
14 May 2012, 3:57 am
So what does this sort of thing look like? [read post]
14 May 2012, 2:59 am
"These test results were exceedingly important because they disproved the belief that antibiotic use in ethanol production was benign vis-à-vis public health," argues IATP in the paper. [read post]
13 May 2012, 5:55 am
This argument was given short shrift by Lord Neuberger who said that, in his opinion, it was wrong [73] and was not supported by the Strasbourg jurisprudence [74] Lord Neuberger’s conclusions were as follows: i) Much of the information on the voicemail messages of the claimants which have been intercepted by Mr Mulcaire is likely to have been ‘commercial information or other intellectual property’ within section 72(5); ii) Although some of the information was not ‘commercial… [read post]
12 May 2012, 10:57 am
VI. [read post]
12 May 2012, 4:51 am
This argument was given short shrift by Lord Neuberger who said that, in his opinion, it was wrong [73] and was not supported by the Strasbourg jurisprudence [74] Lord Neuberger’s conclusions were as follows: i) Much of the information on the voicemail messages of the claimants which have been intercepted by Mr Mulcaire is likely to have been ‘commercial information or other intellectual property’ within section 72(5); ii) Although some of the information was not… [read post]
11 May 2012, 9:27 am
The position pays $35.00-$40.00 per hour, but does not provide county benefits. [read post]
