Search for: "B. R." Results 41 - 60 of 56,212
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2024, 5:27 am by Michael Oykhman
This was discussed in the case of R v McSween (2020), ONCA 343 (CanLII). [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 3:32 am by JR Chaves
Segundo, como la doctrina que se le pide es sobre el sentido del silencio se centra en este enfoque y afirma: En cuanto al silencio administrativo, el Real Decreto 1777/1994, de 5 de agosto, sigue siendo aplicable para adecuar el régimen de la Ley 39/2015 a los procedimientos en materia de gestión de personal. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 3:47 am by Michael Oykhman
The case of R v ML, 2021 NBCA 27 also stated that the actus reus is made out where a “reasonable person aware of the circumstances would perceive the words as a threat of death or bodily harm”. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 12:30 am by Anna Maria Stein
 By decision of 28 May 2024 (R 173/2024) the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (BoA) rejected a 3D trade mark for jewellery constituted by the representation of a bejewelled eagle. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 12:08 pm by Eugene Volokh
And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its "commitment" to the "[b]lack women-owned" business community. [read post]
2 Jun 2024, 4:00 am by SOQUIJ
En l’espèce, l’appelant ne saurait bénéficier de sa conduite empreinte de mauvaise foi. [read post]
31 May 2024, 12:02 pm by Alessandro Cerri
In a recent decision (R 1397-2022-5), the Fifth Board of Appeal (the Board) of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) took the unusual step of suspending an opposition appeal so as to remand the trade mark application to the Examiner for an examination on the basis of absolute grounds of refusal. [read post]
29 May 2024, 9:00 am by Alyzza Austriaco
“When the law was passed by Congress, it was explicitly understood not to address abortion at all, and the text of the statute does not address abortion,” said Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti (R), one of the co-leaders of the multistate suit. [read post]
28 May 2024, 11:42 am by Giles Peaker
Mr C’s position was that of a person in ‘accommodation plus’ need, as per R (Aburas) v London Borough of Southwark (2019) EWHC 2754 (Admin). [read post]