Search for: "Lay v. Lay"
Results 5361 - 5380
of 8,598
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2012, 5:15 am
Pie Optiek SPRL v Bureau Gevers SA and others: Case C-376/11; [2012] WLR (D) 219 “The third sub-paragraph of article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration meant that, in a situation where the prior right concerned was a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior… [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
If, for example, the invisible, intangible essence of air, which we term a corporation, can level mountains, fill up valleys, lay down iron tracks, and run railroad cars on them, it can intend to do it, and can act therein as well viciously as virtuously. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:13 am
In Wortman v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:00 am
Quinn in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of Kamboj v. [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 11:00 am
Partes: Luis Colón Alicea y otros, Peticionarios v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 8:18 am
The Kinston case, Nix v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 4:40 am
State v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 12:53 am
All in all, this suggested that the balance of convenience lay in favour of letting the NOW TV launch go ahead. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:56 pm
At the heart of the claim lay two simple but fiercely disputed questions: Did the claimant kill his girlfriend in 2005? [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 7:21 am
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 7:17 am
In Kaufman v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:45 am
Structurally, the draft Directive is organized into five Titles, containing General Provisions (I), rules on CMOs (II), MTL (III), Enforcement Measures (IV), and Reporting and Final Provisions (V). [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:02 am
96/09 P Anheuser-Busch v Bud? [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
Regina (Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants intervening): Regina (Rahman) v Same: [2012] UKSC 32; [2012] WLR (D) 213 “If a statement of an immigration policy was flexible and stated that an immigration rule relating to leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom might, depending on the circumstances of each case, be relaxed if certain conditions were satisfied, the statement itself was… [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:49 am
Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 10:24 am
U.S. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 7:58 am
This blog’s online symposium on Kiobel v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:07 am
In Gook v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 4:17 am
Resort to the technique of referring to outside documents, is not in itself objectionable, but it is if it enables the Secretary of State to avoid her statutory obligation to lay any changes to the rules before Parliament. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 3:09 am
However, DP5/96, being an amply flexible statement that a rule may be relaxed depending on all the circumstances of the case, is not a rule within the meaning of s 3(2) of the 1971 Act and the Secretary of State did not have to lay it before Parliament. [read post]
