Search for: "Does 1-67"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,626
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Mar 2024, 5:34 pm
The power to make such orders does not derive solely from the Civil Procedure Rules. [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 8:42 am
Common position of the African Union (2024) Contents 1 Introduction2 Applicability of international law3 Sovereignty4 Due diligence5 Prohibition of intervention6 Peaceful settlement of disputes7 Use of force8 Attribution9 International humanitarian law (jus in bello)10 International armed conflict11 Non-international armed conflict12 Conduct of hostilities13 Attacks against persons14 Proportionality15 Specially protected persons, objects and activities (international… [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 am
March 1 was the 70th anniversary of Castle Bravo, the largest U.S. nuclear test, marked as a remembrance day in the Marshall Islands. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 10:30 pm
(3) Causal link A causal link must exist between the infringement and damage (Österreichische Post at 32 and under Article 82(1) GDPR). [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
And though the Court took pains to note its decision “does not mean that corporations cannot leave Delaware,”[2] the decision leaves open questions as to how the Court will determine monetary damages caused by re-domiciling in another jurisdiction. [read post]
2 Mar 2024, 6:08 am
First, a set of Draft Principles were circulated in November 2010.[1] After a period set aside for public comment and following revision of the text,[2] the SRSG circulated the final version of the UNGP (with an included Official Commentary) in March 2011 annexed to his (final) 2011 SRSG Report,[3] the text of which was substantially revised from the circulated November 2010 Draft. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 5:47 am
Code § 55-67 et seq. defines what rights are being conveyed. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 6:41 am
§ 9792.21.1(d)(1), other medical treatment guidelines such as the ACOEM and ODG at 8 Cal. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:33 am
IPSO 20762-23 Dale v Telegraph.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation Resolution Statement – 22502-23 Complainant v The Jewish Chronicle, 1 Accuracy (2021), Resolved – IPSO meditation Resolution Statement – 00041-24 A man v Mail Online, 6 Children (2021), 1 Accuracy (2021), Resolved – IPSO mediation Statements in open court and apologies On 20 February 2024, there was a statement in open court in the case of Tayler v… [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am
The court found that s 14(1) does not state to whom an acknowledgment must be made to interrupt prescription – simply that such an acknowledgment must be made by the debtor. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 5:51 pm
Still to come (maybe) 1. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 8:57 am
” 1 Farrand 63, 67. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
J. 67, 88 (2012). [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am
This post summarizes a published criminal law case released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during January 2024. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 8:29 am
The current statute does not provide for a release of the issues raised in the notice of claim, and defense counsel have to ask for one, but cannot force an owner to sign it. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Respectfully, we also write to raise serious concerns about the reliability of Professor Lash's writings on Section 3 and to make clear what the historical record does—and does not—say.[1] By answering seven questions, we will show that (1) there was a First Insurrection, (2) John B. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
II, § 1, cl. 5). [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm
II, § 1, cl. 5). [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 5:01 am
” Among the 67 plaintiffs are former hostages and people injured from the attacks, as well as family members of those killed. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:00 am
Consequently, the inconsistency one might find to exist between the reasoning of the decision (in paras. 61 and 66, summarised in the list numbered (1) to (4) above) and the official answer (in para. 67, summarised in the list numbered (a) to (d) above), namely that the CJEU mentioned Sentic’s vendors’ assurances as a relevant factor only in the official answer but not in the reasoning, seems irrelevant. 4. [read post]
