Search for: "State v. S. R. R." Results 21 - 40 of 71,935
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2024, 8:56 pm by Béligh Elbalti
Background (based on the outline provided by the DSC’s decisions)  X (appellant) obtained a judgment in the United States against Y (appellee), which then sought to enforce it in Canada (Ontario) via a motion for summary judgment. [read post]
14 Jun 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Anyway, here's an en banc opinion unanimously holding that the complaint in a challenge to California's A.B. 5 does not state an equal-protection claim, overturning an earlier panel opinion that held, equally unanimously, that it did. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 1:06 pm by Administrator
For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were: R. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal… [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal… [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 1:42 am by Eleonora Rosati
This analysis is consistent with recently published decisions by both the General Court and the Boards of Appeal on the topic, inter alia: mataharispaclub v EUIPO - Rouha (SpaClubMatahari), Gugler France v EUIPO - Gugler (GUGLER), R 1320/2022-4, CELESTINO, and R 470/2023-2, TOYA (fig.).Therefore, it is crucial for bad faith applicants to prioritise thorough, high-quality evidence collection for a successful case. [read post]