Search for: "People v Radcliffe"
Results 21 - 40
of 40
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2015, 7:13 am
Changing 1 point v. 10 points in five minutes is an important cue for what I need to do; v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 5:08 am
Oral argument was held Wednesday in EEOC v. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 1:07 pm
In State v. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 1:29 am
” (emphasis added)We do not know what proportion of initial leads are false positives, casting suspicion on blameless people. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 3:32 am
The trial court approved the settlement nonetheless, but on appeal, in Radcliffe v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 1:30 am
In a press statement, RMT claims it “falsely portrays our General Secretary Bob Crow as being part of a culture of political immorality and as having caused serious harm to the interests of people in London“. [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 8:01 am
This wasn't a close case.United Factory Furniture Corp. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 7:25 am
Madison, the seminal case which established judicial review, to the recent District of Columbia v. [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 5:26 am
The case is Turner v. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 10:51 am
(June 14, 1991) (presented by plaintiffs’ counsel Jim Pettit, of Greitzer & Locks), in Radcliff v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:16 am
” Orin Kerr: internal v. external perspectives. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 7:16 am
The judge, applied the accepted “classic test” for frustration given by Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham [1956] AC 696, 729: “frustration occurs whenever the law recognises that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would make a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract”. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 9:08 am
Hat tip to Simple Justice who had this nice post on the recent decision in People v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 4:19 am
The motion, People v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 3:53 am
Here, in Peo v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 12:59 am
Radcliffe Barnes [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 9:39 am
* Abrams v. [read post]
18 Sep 2005, 7:10 pm
Maybe you're not amused, but I sure was.In the "this is really only funny to a specific group of people" category, check out some commentary over at The Patent Baristas, entitled "France Moves to Protect Strategic Yogurt Interests. [read post]
31 Dec 1969, 4:00 pm
It’s a question that for most people exists more in theory than in practice. [read post]
