Search for: "State v. Cote"
Results 21 - 40
of 138
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2020, 8:07 am
As they pointed out, just a few years earlier, in Kazemi Estate v. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
Then in 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada case Calder v. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 11:32 am
In its decision in Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5, the Supreme Court of Canada has held (by a 7-2 decision) that the act of state doctrine is not part of Canadian law (para. 59) and so does not preclude any of the claims. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 2:41 pm
City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 5:02 am
McDermott v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 12:37 pm
Judge Cote applied the analysis laid out by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 6:52 am
In Latif v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 6:52 am
In Latif v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 11:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 6:39 am
(v) Content Context is king. [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 8:27 pm
Cote,[2003] BCHRT 32, and Baylis-Flannery v. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 6:06 am
State DA 17-0622 2019 MT 13N Civil – Postconviction State v. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 1:00 pm
In 2004, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 11:51 am
The post ACS v. [read post]
8 Sep 2018, 4:11 am
Southern District of New York Judge Denise Cote imposed the monetary sanction on attorney Richard L. pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules and the court’s inherent authority to manage its own affairs (Paul Steeger v. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 8:00 am
The late playwright's son sued del Toro, the Fox Searchlight studio and others in February and Zindel v. [read post]
10 Jun 2018, 3:23 am
In contrast, Justice Cote, with whom Justices Brown and Rowe agreed, stated that “I am concerned that disregarding the applicable law in the alternative forum is inconsistent with the comparative nature of the forum non conveniens analysis” (para 89). [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
Justice Cote strongly disagreed (para 83). [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 7:43 am
Justice Cote, joined by Justices Brown and Rowe, stated that “consideration of such an undertaking would allow a wealthy plaintiff to sway the forum non conveniens analysis, which would be inimical to the foundational principles of fairness and efficiency underlying this doctrine” (para 66). [read post]
