Search for: "WOODS v STATE FUND" Results 41 - 60 of 397
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2023, 9:30 pm by ernst
Wood Fund for the Undergraduate Study of History. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
As a point of context, it’s worth noting that many states already require disclosure or much more draconian regulation of litigation funders backing state court cases—for instance, some states require funds and funders to register, and some even require funding agreements to be disclosed with the state. [read post]
20 May 2008, 8:28 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Flynn & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 970 (02 May 2008) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) B v B [2008] EWCA Civ 483 (12 May 2008) G, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 1096 (20 May 2008) W (Children) [2008] EWCA Civ 538 (20 May 2008) TH v RB [2008] EWCA Civ 539 (20 May 2008) SB v County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 535 (20 May 2008) Romantiek Transport BVba & Ors… [read post]
10 May 2012, 1:56 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs [2012] EWCA Civ 569 (09 May 2012) Barker v Hambleton District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 610 (09 May 2012) London Borough of Enfield v Outdoor Plus Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 608 (09 May 2012) Slater v Stephen Mark St Patrick Condappa [2012] EWCA Civ 598 (09 May 2012) Owen Ernest Wood & Ors v Hudson Industrial Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 599 (09 May 2012) LE… [read post]
18 May 2009, 7:10 am
The case is Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 5:17 am by David Oscar Markus
  This time it's a confrontation clause issue in United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 6:51 am by Sean Wajert
No. 109–14, at 42 (2005)); see also Woods v. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 6:42 am
Emily Garcia Uhrig previews Wood v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 12:07 am by INFORRM
Together with this, the test laid down by Laws LJ in R(Wood) v Commissioner of the Metropolis provides a firm guiding hand to this notoriously difficult balancing act: First, the alleged threat or assault to the individual’s personal autonomy must (if article 8 is to be engaged) attain ‘a certain level of seriousness’. [read post]