Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 441 - 460
of 464
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2009, 12:14 pm
There has to be some particular reason why X should be held to have assumed responsibility for protecting Y from Z. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 6:19 pm
But rather because a change in such settings seems untoward.Say, for example, we're the Supreme Court, and we issue a 5-4 decision in favor of X against Y. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 12:01 pm
The Court considers that, while this case might not attain the seriousness of X and Y v. the Netherlands, where a breach of Article 8 arose from the lack of an effective criminal sanction for the rape of a handicapped girl, it cannot be treated as trivial. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 1:03 pm
Today, the International Court of Justice concluded its public hearings in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 2:53 am
’ “On May 27, 2008, the court held a telephone conference to read Juror X’s letter to the parties. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:07 am
Is the fact that Person X contributed $100 to Candidate Y likely to reveal interests to whom Candidate Y will be beholden? [read post]
18 Jun 2008, 3:37 pm
Thus, parties often ask the judge to determine whether or not claimed element “X” should be interpreted to cover “Y” - where Y is an element of the accused product. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 10:50 pm
I have now got hold of the judgment in X v Hounslow [2008] All ER 337 (May) (thanks to assorted helpful sprites). [read post]
29 May 2008, 6:40 pm
In G v Financial Institutions X and Y [2008] PrivCmrA 7 the complaint related to the disclosure of a person's information under significant cash transaction reports to AUSTRAC. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 12:44 pm
Korn v. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 4:30 am
Faltaous v. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 8:20 am
" Then everyone spends the next decade litigating whether X, Y, or Z makes any difference. [read post]
30 Dec 2007, 10:02 am
Y is for YouTube, which was ordered to remove a video posted by a disgruntled law firm client. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 6:53 pm
., et al. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 1:20 pm
Do you really need witness X to discuss topic A when you already have Y to discuss it? [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:59 am
After all, the government's choice of whether to take Parcel X or to take Parcel Y for a new public school is recognized as an exercise of the "power" of eminent domain; and if the government chooses to take Parcel X, it is, by necessity, refraining from taking Parcel Y. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 8:00 am
It is almost impossible to know, with certainty, who the two people in the conversation really were - "even if a user believes that "UTFan" is Person X, Person Y may have hacked into the UTFan username. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 12:22 pm
X contracts with Y but before completing the contract Y starts doing business with Z. [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 11:50 pm
The parties have filed in this case the new protocols established by theDepartment of Corrections to address the concerns of the Governor's Commission andthe concerns of Judge Angel in the Circuit Court of Marion County, following hearingshe has conducted in State v. [read post]
24 Mar 2007, 11:12 am
The Civil War, rather than the founding - rather than Marbury v. [read post]
