Search for: "Com. v. B,C. (Complete Opinion)" Results 21 - 40 of 64
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  In light of this, and the fact that the language OPR proposes to delete provides much more specific and concrete guidance than does the language OPR would add in new subdivision (b)(4), OPR should, in my opinion, not delete the language but, rather, leave subdivision (b)(2)(A) as it is currently written. [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 3:48 am
  Jones chose Door B, and spent five hours in jail before making bond. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
OPINION AND ORDER SARGUS, J. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am by Eugene Volokh
Rather, it should be read as objectionable in ways "similar in nature" to the ways that the preceding terms are objectionable.[12] [B.] [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 3:00 am by Lisette Mustert
Whereas in other areas of law there is, for instance, a need for the Commission to give reasons if it wants to set aside advice from an expert EU body or agency, this is not the case with regard to EDPS opinions – for example, the Commission cannot simply set aside the European Aviation Safety Agency’s advice on technical rules (Article 75(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139). [read post]