Search for: "French v. French"
Results 441 - 460
of 4,623
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2014, 2:13 am
” Although the English were outnumbered five to one, they went on to defeat the French at Agincourt. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 3:54 pm
It highlighted the restrictions on abortion in the US, citing the landmark decision of Roe v. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 5:23 pm
On February 1st 2012, the application was communicated to the agent of the French Republic with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 2:55 am
In the case of Giesbert v France ([2017] ECHR 504, 1 June 2017)(French only) the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that Court orders made against the magazine, Le Point, sanctioning the publication of criminal court documents in the high profile “Bettancourt” case did not violate Article 10 of the Convention. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects) The most-consulted French-language decision was Saurette c. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 9:29 am
Arizona v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 10:45 am
Alternatively it's Wilo SE v Harmonisierungsamt für den Binnenmarkt (Marken, Muster und Modelle) (HABM). [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 3:47 am
For example, in a 1969 case, Watts v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 8:08 am
In Aygün v Belgium [2022] ECHR 939 [in French], the applicants’ two sons had been murdered in September 2010 and in February 2014 a neighbour was convicted of their murder. [read post]
16 May 2024, 5:40 am
In Mikyas and Others v Belgium [2024] No 50681/20 [In French], three young Muslim women complained that they were not allowed to wear the hijab at secondary schools except during religious education classes. [read post]
18 Aug 2021, 4:05 am
In Valente v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 9:30 pm
It includes Beyond Backlash: Legal History, Polarization, and Roe v. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 3:27 pm
On April 5th 2011, the 1st section of the ECHR ruled in judgment Rahimi v. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
Alberta Energy Regulator v. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 4:00 am
Marchi v. [read post]
