Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 4881 - 4900
of 6,183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2011, 8:42 am
Thus, given the inquiry’s far-reaching impact on Callelly’s reputation, the case is clearly distinguishable from O’Malley v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2011] EWCA Civ 1: read judgment. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 5:43 am
The citizen’s religious freedom claim does not depend on validation by an external authority: “a secular court cannot possibly choose in matters of this kind …can the State be prescriptive as to what shall be orthodox or conventional in such matters” [para 29]. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 3:04 am
The complainant visited and cannot state for certain if Desmond is responsible. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 10:00 pm
R (on the application of) Reetha Suppiah and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Interveners [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) – Read judgment A high court judge has ruled that two asylum seekers and their children were unlawfully detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration centre last year. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 11:36 am
In Sander v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:28 am
Part V will review the legal basis on which the majority rests its authority for the rules, likely to be challenged in court. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 11:07 pm
General Steve Burrill makes predictions for the biotech industry in 25th annual report (Patent Docs) Australia: ‘Innovation’ patents in Australia – AMI innovation patent and US investment (IPBiz) Australia: Extension of patent term for pharmaceuticals in Australia: AAT decision in LTS Lohmann Therapie Systeme AG and Schwarz Pharma Ltd and Commissioner of Patents (Patent Baristas) US: CAFC : Single embodiment commercial success: In re Glatt Air Techniques (Patently-O) (Patents Post… [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 9:43 pm
There would, of course, probably be little problem with fitting some aspects of a graphic user interface within the concept of artistic works in section 4 – particularly “graphic works”: Navitaire v EasyJet [2006] RPC 111, 153 (para 98); Nova v Mazooma [2006] RPC 379 (para 100). [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 1:51 pm
" The states reject the standard as too lax.The petition is Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 3:44 pm
[paras 17 & 18] Further, assistance in this case was being provided outside the home, rather than care being provided in the home as in the Westminster v NASS case. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 3:44 pm
[paras 17 & 18] Further, assistance in this case was being provided outside the home, rather than care being provided in the home as in the Westminster v NASS case. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 7:19 am
Canada Life Assurance Co., 2006 BCCA 110 at para. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm
On Ground 6, the GP’s letter stated that she was ‘fairly vulnerable’, not ‘very vulnerable. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm
This was sufficient in itself to distinguish this case from Hall v Wandsworth LBC, Carter v Wandsworth LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1740; [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 5:21 pm
Randall v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 12:09 pm
Krumpelbeck v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 7:31 am
¶28. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 12:22 pm
As the Report makes clear (¶;¶ 53-61), the transparency rule has teeth. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 5:21 pm
See Lukács v. [read post]
