Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 4861 - 4880
of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2020, 6:59 am
As well-stated by the court, “[H]ow can an employer be penalized for confirming in writing that an employee will not receive what he is not entitled to (at para 13)? [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 2:30 pm
The transcript was produced as a result of testimony taken in the cases of State v. [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 10:12 am
Healy Co. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2024, 10:30 pm
’ At the Prague European Summit 2024, European Commissioner for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová indicated that while the EMFA makes significant strides for establishing protections of editorial independence in public media and media ownership transparency, Hungarian media state capture is ultimately at the whim of the national government and fundamentally irreversible from the European level. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 1:46 pm
COMINT Systems Corp. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 2:39 pm
Clements, 2012 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the primary “but for” test of causation and aptly summarized the present state of the law as follows … See Kirby v Raman, 2015 NLCA 48 (CanLII) What I have omitted from para. 101 of the quotation above is paragraphs [8-11] of Clements. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 7:31 pm
However, in Lobo v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 11:56 am
Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 12:37 am
As this court stated in Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 3:00 am
United States, Case No. 22-cv-81294-AMC (S.D.Fla. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 7:10 am
And in OMA v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 8:41 pm
(Indictment¶;¶1-9). [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
Coca-Cola only surveyed in 10 of the 27 Member States, which the court held to be less than a ‘significant proportion’ of the relevant public for the Mark. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 7:58 am
In Mission Creek Mortgage Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:44 am
The judge held that the “undue burden” concept in English law (particularly as outlined by Arnold J in Eli Lilly v Janssen in 2014) was not particularly helpful under Australian law. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:03 pm
In today’s case (Toukaev v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 12:35 pm
She came to this country as a teenage refugee from Vietnam and later served in the United States Army. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 10:32 am
This issue that has been debated by copyright experts over the years because, it is argued, the destruction of an artwork may or may not have a negative impact on the reputation of the artist – the test established by Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, and mirrored in most copyright laws in the world, for claiming a violation of the artist’s right of integrity (in the context of Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India, I commented: “destruction of a work can prejudice an… [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 12:25 am
[One might presume to interpret the tone of this declaration (at para 66) as jolly good British eyebrow raise!] [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 1:32 pm
The Committee For Re-evaluation of the T-Line Loop, et al v. [read post]
