Search for: "Parris v. Light"
Results 21 - 40
of 56
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2016, 1:44 am
Justices Longmore and Sales (who were minded to dismiss the appeal) relied heavily on Parry v Cleaver [1970] A.C.1, in which it was held that benefits do not fall to be taken into account, even if caused by the breach, where it would be contrary to fairness and justice. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 8:13 am
He argued that in light of these goals, Congress simply could not have intended for the statute to function as intended. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 6:29 am
Next Tuesday, the Court will hear argument in Henderson v. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 9:08 am
Lasek. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 12:14 pm
To take one example: in a high-profile 2011 decision, Henry v. [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 3:48 pm
Indeed, Holmes might have parried by suggesting that the definition of a standard of conduct by means of a legal rule is predictable and certain, whereas standards and juries are not. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 11:00 am
On January 11, the Court heard oral arguments in Roberts v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 12:04 am
Pursuant to that statute, "[a] sworn juror must be discharged when facts come to light, which were not known at the time the jury was empaneled, indicating that the juror is 'grossly unqualified to serve'" (People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 212 [2002], quoting CPL 270.35 [1]). [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 4:42 am
jovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch, Inc. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 11:20 am
Sullivan parries, by reminding Griffith of Walton’s unqualified conclusion that Suleiman was simply “part of” the Taliban. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 12:24 pm
In Wyeth v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 11:38 am
See Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 10:51 pm
Parry, [1963] 2 W.L.R. 846). [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 4:35 pm
Indeed, Holmes might have parried by suggesting that the definition of a standard of conduct by means of a legal rule is predictable and certain, whereas standards and juries are not. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 10:46 pm
Parris proposes two amendments to the Convention, one of which would require refugees to apply to an international body for asylum, rather than individual countries of their choice; the second, “harsher” amendment is that Asylum should not be available to anyone who could choose to live, reasonably safely, in the state they want to flee. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 8:03 pm
Penguin Group v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 10:57 am
In this week’s case (Frangolias v. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 9:11 pm
Click Here Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 10:36 am
In its 2008 decision in Munaf v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 2:03 am
In its 2008 decision in Munaf v. [read post]
