Search for: "State v. P. G."
Results 401 - 420
of 2,450
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2020, 1:26 pm
’” M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 7:07 am
Patterson v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 3:57 pm
But also of interest--in particular to students of Cuba (and now developed states)--is the examination of the development of the informal sector and its consequences for public law and management. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 10:46 am
In Liu v. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 8:51 am
P. 64(a). [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 4:35 am
(forthcoming 2020).Ioanna Tourkochoriti, How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice? [read post]
20 Jun 2020, 3:01 pm
Litton Indus., Inc., 410 Mass. 15, 23 (1991); Columbia State Bank v. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:12 am
Bell P’s liberal approach was not followed by the majority. [read post]
6 Jun 2020, 12:43 pm
(p. 30)5. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 10:08 am
In his Opinion, Advocate General considered that the referring court is concerned by the actions relating to “acts or omissions in the exercise of state authority” linked to the concept of “acta iure imperii” – a concept which is also used in international law in relation to the principle of State immunity. [read post]
29 May 2020, 4:00 am
Under the heading, “Determining Appropriate Scope of Regulation,” the Strategic Plan states (p. 7) that effectiveness of regulation requires LSO to: … periodically confirm the scope of what and how it regulates, particularly in an environment where accessibility of affordable legal services is an issue and significant advances in technology and related innovations are taking place. [read post]
26 May 2020, 12:00 pm
Véase, In re State ex rel. [read post]
26 May 2020, 6:22 am
CV 92-P-10000-S, entered the order on July 23, 1993. [read post]
Bush v. Lone Oak Club – Texas Supreme Court Once Again Dives Into the Arcane Law of Water Boundaries
25 May 2020, 11:20 pm
The John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial foundation v. [read post]
22 May 2020, 8:26 am
From Judge G. [read post]
12 May 2020, 3:14 pm
The court offers Skype settlement conferences when the parties agree and virtual proceedings for civil motions or applications when certain criteria are met, including the “[p]arties are represented by counsel; [t]he matter will take four hours or less; [t]here is no viva voce evidence, including cross-examination; and [a]ll parties consent, or a judge otherwise orders”. [read post]
10 May 2020, 8:01 am
” Coons v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 4:16 pm
” Blisset v. [read post]
6 May 2020, 5:02 am
[So a Maryland appellate court held last month, I think quite correctly (and consistently with the broad trend in other states):] From Nouri v. [read post]
4 May 2020, 4:46 pm
This specific issue has been tackled by the Court of Justice in GC et al v CNIL (C-136/17) finding that Article 9’s permitting of exceptions “necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of Union or Member State law” (GDPR, art. 9(2)(g)) could be invoked by Google even in the absence of any Union or Member State statutory provision providing for this and even apparently as regards criminal-related data as specified in… [read post]
