Search for: "Doe v. Doe, III." Results 21 - 40 of 10,780
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2024, 9:40 am by Giles Peaker
The review decision in part stated I refer to R v Oxford CC ex p Doyle (1997) concluding that a Child Arrangement Order does not mean the Children are reasonably expected to live with both parents. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 10:30 pm by Alessandro Marcia
Yet, Bulgarian authorities refused to issue a passport/ID for S.D.K.A since Bulgarian law does not recognise same-sex parenthood. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 4:49 pm by INFORRM
First, following Curistan v Times Newspapers [2009] QB 231, qualified privilege operates so that the relevant privileged words are ignored for defamation purposes, at least as far as meaning is concerned, except insofar as they provide context for non-privileged words [56]. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 8:58 am by Telecommunications Practice Group
This could be done by providing evidence that the practice: (i) does not materially degrade or threaten to materially degrade the BIAS of the general public; (ii) does not hinder consumer choice; (iii) does not impair competition, innovation, consumer demands, or investment; and (iv) does not impede any forms of expression, types of service, or points of view. [read post]
31 May 2024, 5:55 am by Yousuf Syed Khan
Notably, the Prosecutor’s statement itself does not mention belligerent occupation. [read post]