Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 5201 - 5220
of 7,358
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2021, 4:51 am
This is the state of affairs to which I want to draw attention in this post and to offer a brief critique. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 12:07 pm
State of Ohio, No.7-3808 (6th Cir. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 7:22 pm
Last month, in United States v. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 5:34 am
For some, that is enough to condemn it as an unwarranted interference in the affairs of a foreign sovereign State. [read post]
13 May 2012, 8:20 am
The Press Statement states that "The General Court correctly analysed whether the earlier BOTOX marks had a reputation with the general public and health-care professionals in the UK on the basis of the evidence adduced by Allergan, such as press articles published in scientific journals or English daily newspapers and the inclusion of the word ‘BOTOX’ in English dictionaries. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 9:00 pm
See United States v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 11:06 am
In Costa v. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 7:16 am
An English copy can be seen here. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 2:29 am
So it is illegal for any agents of the state to carry out or be complicit in such treatment. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 4:23 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 12:25 pm
State, 2019 Fla.App. [read post]
25 Feb 2012, 2:33 am
However, as the Court of Appeal here rightly points out, the applicable Australian statute was materially different from its English counterpart. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 1:33 pm
See Hexum v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 2:31 pm
The case, Musacchio v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 10:04 am
About 3,300 inmates are on death row in the United States. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 1:52 pm
Boersema, Lucas ReijndersWater ResourcesIntroduction to water resources and environmental issues / Karrie Lynn Pennington, Thomas V. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 2:30 pm
In City of Chesterfield v. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 4:17 pm
" Cushman v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 11:23 am
In the matter of United States V. [read post]
29 Nov 2015, 9:31 am
Even more, the Court – similarly as the Austrian Supreme Court in UPC Telekabel and the English High Court in Cartier v Sky – recognized that the availability of this remedy is compulsory under Art. 8(3) InfoSoc Directive. [read post]
