Search for: "In Re Interest of JA"
Results 21 - 40
of 95
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2019, 2:08 am
Questions 1 and 2 are interesting for querying the extent of the right to be heard in proceedings before the EPO. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
It gave McIntyre a life-long interest in the subject in general and a particular fondness for Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.[7] Given this deep affinity between philosophy and law, one might expect to see explicit references to the major philosophers in the decisions written by judges.[8] This study discusses the extent to which this is true. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 9:44 pm
About nineteen and a half minutes into the documentary, we’re introduced to Ja Rule; we see him in an interview (with Wendy, apparently), who says to him, “So you spent two years in prison. [read post]
1 Jan 2019, 3:12 pm
One of the more interesting manifestations of the role of religion within political life is that of the priests of the practitioners of the old religions of Africa as re-established in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Marxist-Leninist Cuba. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 5:00 am
This part of the article made me re-think this issue myself. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 7:32 pm
There is no argument by the Crown that the Chambers Judge mischaracterized the question as to the first element of the tri-partite test because it had sought an interim injunction in the context of a “hybrid” application, with the interim application for injunctive relief sounding in civil law. [27] With respect, it is not open to this Court to re-cast the argument in a fashion that the applicant Crown failed to do. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 1:00 am
For instance, they may be interested in music, they may be interested in sport, and that shows a rounded personality which is the ideal candidate. [read post]
13 Aug 2016, 4:23 am
It needs to re-invent itself for a new media age. [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 1:27 pm
All parties stipulated to waive the report of the referee and to allow the kinship issues to be decided by the court based upon the transcript of the hearing, the documentary evidence and the arguments made by the claimants and the guardian ad litem representing the interests of unknown distributees. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 2:39 pm
When the Supreme Court of Canada says “X” in 2007, and repeats “X” in 2011 adding explicitly that “X does not mean Y but means Z”, it is reasonable to assume (is it not?) [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 6:01 am
Each Thursday we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 6:32 pm
Electronic submissions to: Ja Yun Lee, lawadao@hawaii.edu preferred; otherwise to William S. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:22 pm
Cody SH, Glynn MK, Farrar JA, Cairns KL, Griffin PM, Kobayashi J, Fyfe M, Hoffman R, King AS, Lewis JH, Swaminathan B, Bryant RG, and Vugia DJ. (1999). [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 6:00 am
Without question, the most interesting part of the case involves Nigel Wright’s infamous decision to pay Duffy’s expenses for him – the $90,000 cheque that forms the basis of three specific charges against Duffy. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 9:30 pm
I’m getting that same sense of de ja vu about the city of my birth. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
Pinker notes that we’re more likely to overestimate the average reader’s familiarity with our world than to underestimate it. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 10:40 am
Cameron JA noted that there are currently many religious societies that approve same-sex marriages. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 11:19 am
The public policy identified by the Court included protecting the Torrens land registration system and ensuring that municipal authorities retained control over subdivision.[1] As a result, Newbury JA held that the lease in Top Line was unregistrable, unenforceable (even between the parties to the lease), and invalid from the outset. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
On the merits of the original decision, Chiasson JA agreed with Goepel JA’s concurring reasons. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 3:27 pm
Under the amended petition, G is not listed as an interested person under paragraph 6(a), despite her interests under the will. [read post]
