Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Core"
Results 461 - 480
of 3,775
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2018, 4:00 am
The Supreme Court of Canada says that a core aspect of a lawyer’s duty of loyalty is the “duty of commitment to the client’s cause (sometimes referred to as ‘zealous representation’)” (R v Neil 2002 SCC 70 at para. 19). [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 8:51 am
He regularly misidentified people, was delusional, and was sometimes disoriented. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 8:50 am
[a few comments on the oral arguments in SEC v. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 12:34 pm
People v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 8:03 am
Mandel (1972), or Kerry v. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 9:34 am
Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 6:17 pm
In Mays v. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 5:04 am
In Estate of Thornton v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 10:12 am
If we "do pro bono," do we do it for people who ask for it? [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 1:22 pm
[emphasis added; citing Mattingly v. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 2:23 pm
Our core claim is that the privileges or immunities of citizens were defined by the unwritten general law recognized by Swift v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 4:32 pm
By Eric Goldman Crawford v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 10:51 am
(Eugene Volokh) Bateman v. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 6:49 am
State v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 2:01 pm
But that leads to abuse, and conflicts with the core purpose of the statute, which was to stop removal in diversity cases when it wasn't needed because the defendant resides there anyway. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 9:58 am
It's a domestic violence case, so people might well have strong opinions at the outset. [read post]
19 Nov 2020, 1:46 pm
"Craziness.I get that love -- and sometimes generosity -- makes people do silly things. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 4:20 pm
The majority of readers were in Israel, but at least 200 people read the article online in Canada. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 10:48 am
(See Melone v. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
In the employment context, the authorities are clear that where a ‘crucial core’ of facts is in dispute, it is an error of law, except in an “exceptional case” to strike out a discrimination claim: Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] I.C.R. 1126, CA. [read post]
