Search for: "Givens v. Givens" Results 4521 - 4540 of 67,529
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2010, 10:39 am by Dave
Now, this is a really important point, I think (and not one that I'd given much thought to before reading the decision) because it does raise both a technical ground of appeal as well as, much more importantly in my eyes, an important right for the applicant on a review to make written/oral submissions (on which see our notes of Banks v Kingston-upon-Thames LBC [2009] HLR 29 & Lambeth LBC v Johnston [2009] HLR 10, esp at [53], again per Rimer LJ). [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 10:39 am by Dave
Now, this is a really important point, I think (and not one that I'd given much thought to before reading the decision) because it does raise both a technical ground of appeal as well as, much more importantly in my eyes, an important right for the applicant on a review to make written/oral submissions (on which see our notes of Banks v Kingston-upon-Thames LBC [2009] HLR 29 & Lambeth LBC v Johnston [2009] HLR 10, esp at [53], again per Rimer LJ). [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 5:58 am by Paul Venard
Most employers are given the option of what type of medical coverage they provide for their employees. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 2:48 am by IAN SKELT
  It is self-evident that any case which includes express reference to (amongst others) Donoghue v Stevenson, Hedley Byrne v Heller, Anns v Merton, Murphy v Brentwood, Caparo v Dickman, Stovin v Wise is going to be of importance. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:40 pm by blogarbadmin
District Court for the District of Columbia (Republic of Argentina v BG Group PLC, 715 F.Supp.2d 108 (D.D.C.2010); Republic of Argentina v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 7:18 am by Docket Navigator
"The Court construed the claim term 'varied/vary in opposition' as follows: 'to intentionally provide within a given cube corner element a 1‐2 dihedral angle error and a 1‐3 dihedral error that are different in magnitude and/or sign.' [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 5:00 am
& Elec., Inc. v First Specialty Ins. [read post]