Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 4501 - 4520
of 6,122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2011, 3:13 pm
Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-58 (WLS), will appear at CCH 2011-1 Trade Cases ¶77,508. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 1:35 am
Lord Hope stated: “They [the ISA] must make their own assessment of the reliability of the evidence. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:01 pm
State v. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 10:00 pm
The observations of the Court of Justice at para 344 of Kadi v Council of the European Union [2009] AC 1225 indicate that EU law is willing to accept a closed material procedure in the interests of national security. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 12:28 pm
The judgment in Nandini Sundaram v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 12:28 pm
The judgment in Nandini Sundaram v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:15 am
HHJ Mitchell quashed that decision, finding that Reg 6(2) operates when a person is no longer working, ie if the illness happens after the applicant lost his job and even if the illness was unrelated to his work; and that he was bound by the decision in FB v Secretary of State for Work [2010] UKUT 447 (IAC) to find that temporary in para (a) meant not permanent. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:15 am
HHJ Mitchell quashed that decision, finding that Reg 6(2) operates when a person is no longer working, ie if the illness happens after the applicant lost his job and even if the illness was unrelated to his work; and that he was bound by the decision in FB v Secretary of State for Work [2010] UKUT 447 (IAC) to find that temporary in para (a) meant not permanent. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:09 am
Decision in full:United States District Court,N.D. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 7:21 pm
The controversy calls to mind last term’s CAAF decision in United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 4:25 am
State v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 10:55 pm
In Bryan v UK the European Court stated: 37. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 8:02 pm
Mills, CCH Privacy Law in Marketing ¶60,527) and New Hampshire (IMS Health Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 12:05 pm
" (para. 102). [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 4:21 am
McClean v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:38 pm
For example, the Supreme Court had held that an LPA is maintainable against a judgment given by a single judge under: (a) s. 76(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1940 (National Sewing Thread Co v James Chadwick—a three-judge Bench); (b) s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Vinita Khanolkar v Pai—a two-judge Bench); (c) s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sharda Devi v State of Bihar—a three-judge Bench); (d) s. 299 of the Indian Succession Act,… [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:15 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 5:50 pm
The Convention is a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Loizidou v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 7:00 am
¶ 12]. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 5:02 am
They also referred his case to the Secretary of State with a view to him being barred from working with children. [read post]
