Search for: "Le Mere v. Le Mere" Results 21 - 40 of 345
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jan 2023, 6:38 pm
Desde La Habana, el sacerdote de Ifá, Víctor Betancourt, dijo que la oficialista Asociación Cultural Yoruba rompió con los acuerdos establecidos desde 2016 y este año hicieron la ceremonia "a puerta cerrada, sin convocar a nadie de la comisión". [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 4:23 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
” “By punishing any breach, however minor, with forfeiture of valuable interests in exchange for a mere dollar,” Justice Schecter ruled, “the intent of the provision is purely punitive” and unenforceable as against public policy. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 7:56 am by OTy9gYz
Such is the high-profile case of an allegedly Nazi looted Modigliani leaked to have been stored in Geneva Freeport.[29]Maestracci v. [read post]
13 Oct 2022, 6:05 am by Joseph Margulies
Habib, who is Australian, had been one of the four petitioners in Rasul v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 3:00 am
La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2006)). [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
A second follow-up case, Steinmetz et al v Germany, was filed in 2022. [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 12:39 am by Florian Mueller
We're way past the point at which Apple's abuse of its market power is merely a problem affecting "competitors" or a few consumers. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 10:35 pm by Florian Mueller
In other words, ACT | The App(le) Association is part of the extended workbench of Apple's lobbying department. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 12:30 am by David Pocklington
This contrasts with Re St Ebbe with Holy Trinity and St Peter Le Bailey [2011] Oxford Const. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 9:04 am by Mohammed Chavoos
In other words, mere presence at the scene of the violence does not establish common purpose. [read post]
29 May 2022, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
This case is the latest in a line of representative claims that have been withdrawn since the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google, which determined that damages could only be awarded following individualised assessment, and were not available under the Data Protection Act 1998 merely for “loss of control” of personal data: proof of damage or distress was necessary. [read post]