Search for: "In Interest of Peter B."
Results 41 - 60
of 1,664
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2023, 11:43 am
One could, I suppose, argue that deficits harm future innocents, except that (a) there is no evidence that they do (at least as the US has seen over its history), and (b) it is possible -- indeed morally required -- for future non-starving people to prevent people (including children) from starving today. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 9:03 am
‘Our primary filing was a request under Rule 262.1(b) of the UPC Rules of Procedure requesting that the Munich section of the central division make available to us all written pleadings and evidence filed on case no ACT_464985/2023. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:59 am
IRAN AND PROXIES The U.K. will send a second warship to the Gulf to “bolster [its] presence in the region, and keep Britain and [its] interests safe from a more volatile and contested world,” Defense Secretary Grant Shapps confirmed. [read post]
26 Nov 2023, 4:55 am
No comment We were puzzled at the interest this week in what some have suggested to be “The fairest, goodliest, and most famous ‘multi-faith’ prayer area in all of England“. [read post]
23 Nov 2023, 1:42 am
In addressing this question, the court referred to paragraphs 12 and 13 of Novartis Division Bench judgement and clarified that S. 3(d) is not limited in its application to pharmacology but its explanation is limited thereto and also referred to paragraphs 82, 87 and 157 of the Supreme Court publications of the Novartis judgement and pronounced that it does not follow from the determination of SC judgement that S. 3(d) applies only to pharmaceutical and agrochemical substances and not to biochemical… [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 3:03 pm
In this regard, section 542.335(1)(b)(3) expressly considers a “legitimate business interest” to include “[s]ubstantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients. [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 11:28 am
Gardner,Peter L. [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 6:14 am
He could not be responsible for interest from 2012. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
Multiple parallel cases This was an interesting feature of the Ocado v AutoStore litigation. [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 4:18 am
Of particular interest is the judge’s assessment of BAT’s allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and PMI’s claim for an Arrow declaration. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 12:44 pm
Moderated by Peter Karol, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law RT: Organized my remarks in response to the oral arguments in Elster, hopefully not too repetitive. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 11:22 am
In effect, the Second Circuit holds that a government official must explicitly threaten adverse consequences for disfavored speech—and must do so in the absence of any contemporaneous assertion of a regulatory interest—for a First Amendment retaliation claim to arise. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 7:13 am
Firstly, SLAPPs are, by their nature, vexatious, malicious, and unmeritorious – thus, it is not in the instigator’s interests that their claim proceed too far through the legal system for fear it will be summarily dismissed. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 3:19 am
The illustrious judging panel featured three UPC judges, with Edger Brinkman as Presiding Judge joined by Peter Tochtermann and Petri Rinkinen. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
I’d like to start by returning to a theme that I’ve touched on before, and that is how public trust in our institutions is faltering.[1] No sector is immune from this trend. [read post]
22 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. [read post]
14 Oct 2023, 1:01 am
He was appointed to the court by President Rutherford B. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 5:54 am
“Now, she must repay her victims, plus interest. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 3:05 am
Access to documents Another interesting development in these first months of the UPC concerns two decisions of judge-rapporteur András Kupecz at the Munich central division, about transparency at the court and the access to documents, as laid down in Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 7:11 pm
This document has been amended over time, and the most recent iteration can be found online at the IARC website.[3] IARC claims to build its classifications upon “consensus” evaluations, based in turn upon considerations of (a) the strength of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, (b) the evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental (non-human) animals, and (c) the mechanistic evidence of carcinogenicity. [read post]
