Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 5101 - 5120
of 6,183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2010, 2:21 am
Regina (Ngouh) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2010] EWHC 2218 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 239 “It was important when considering a decision based on para 322(5) of the Immigration Rules, under which indefinite leave to remain should normally be refused where it was undesirable in view of the applicant’s “character, conduct or associations”, to look closely at the context in which that paragraph was being deployed and to see the reasoning that… [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 8:56 am
In deciding whether all reasonable efforts were made, consideration must be given to the plaintiff’s physical and mental state at the time of the collision, and the circumstances surrounding the collision: Holloway v. [read post]
4 Sep 2010, 12:59 pm
See also Alberta v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 4:56 pm
In Alexis v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 3:22 pm
App. 2005); State v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 2:35 pm
International Trade Commission, 2007-1386, will appear at 2010-2 Trade Cases ¶77,147. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 9:10 pm
" J.A. 66, para. 129. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 6:30 am
In the recent cybersquatting case of Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. ll aka Joe Comeau FA1336979 (Nat. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 10:01 pm
– state of research and development of new drugs in Indian pharma industry (Spicy IP) US: The Financial Times’ take on gene patenting (Patent Docs) US: Seattle Biotech companies fight over allegedly similar names: Mirina Corp. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 2:22 pm
In the case of Service Employees International Union Local No. 150 v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 11:52 am
In Stauffer v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 6:20 pm
" United States v. [read post]
28 Aug 2010, 1:00 am
§ 112 ¶ 6. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 6:33 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:23 pm
[KSR v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 10:19 pm
The record was "bereft of market analyses or an explanation of the actual anticompetitive effects of the MSAA," the dissent contended.The August 17 decision in State of California v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 11:25 am
(CCH Business Franchise Guide ¶13,560). [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 12:28 am
She also stated that Mr A had told her she was not to speak to Social Services. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 4:15 am
See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 2:15 pm
See The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") § 2129 ¶ III (8th ed., rev.8, July 2010) (explaining Jepson claims). [read post]
