Search for: "P. v. Long" Results 4961 - 4980 of 7,176
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2008, 4:57 am
" "[P]roof of specific intent is not required. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 10:30 pm by Matthew Hill
” [see R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173, per Lord Hoffman at p.186H]. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 8:53 am by Schachtman
Briggs, “Use The Wrong P-value, Go To Jail: Not A Joke: Updated With Amicus Brief,” Statistician to the Stars (Oct. 1, 2013). 2 United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 4:31 pm
And we shouldn't ignore the potential of Keith Whittington's theory of "constitutional construction" in this context.Let me conclude by saying Ackerman is absolutely right that traditional theories of change that focus on Article V and Supreme Court decisions can't begin to analyze the issues posed after 9/11 (p. 1807). [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 2:36 pm by Martin George
Essentially, the European litigation system is based on mutual trust which relies on the expectation that the courts of all Member States will apply European law in the same way and respect fundamental rights of the parties to the same extent.14 In the near future, judgments coming from other Member States shall be recognised and enforced without any further review.15 Within the European Judicial Area, litigation and arbitration are considered as two equal alternatives of dispute resolution.16… [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 7:44 am by Susan Brenner
Calucag, 122 Hawaii 202, 224 P.3d 456 (Hawaii Court of Appeals 2010). [read post]
16 May 2021, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
The LSE Media Policy Project blog has a piece by Damian Tambini, “Public service media should be thinking long term when it comes to AI“. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 1:00 am by Emma Kent
Data is not available for 2020 and 2021. [11] Section 218 of the Act. [12] Wilkinson v Kitzinger (No 2) [2007] 1 FLR 295, per Sir Mark Potter P at [50]. [13] See paragraph 21(2)(d) of Schedule 5; paragraph 5(2)(d) of Schedule 6; and paragraph 10(3)(a) of Schedule 7. [14] GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108; IX v IY [2018] EWHC 3053 per Williams J at [68]; MB v EB [2019] EWHC 1649. [15] Levin, I. (2004). [read post]
8 Jun 2019, 5:43 am by Joel R. Brandes
Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., 141 A.D.3d 626, 627, 34 N.Y.S.3d 616).Oral promise to pay credit card bills during the pendency of action unenforceable            In Novick v Novick, ‑‑‑ N.Y.S.3d ‑‑‑‑, 2019 WL 2202438 (Mem), 2019 N.Y. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 7:58 pm by MOTP
UPDATE: Texas Supreme Court denied review 5/24/2019 CLAIM-FRACTURING CUM APPELLATE GALORE Natgasoline LLC v. [read post]