Search for: "Grant v. Royal" Results 581 - 600 of 1,034
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jan 2010, 5:47 am
Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Co., 174 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 1999)....A few years after Butero was decided, the Supreme Court [decided Aetna Health Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 2:21 am by INFORRM
The latest book from journalist and royal reporter, Omid Scobie was embroiled in controversy this week, when the Dutch translation of the publication named two members of the royal family who were alleged in 2021 to have speculated about the skin colour of Prince Harry’s unborn son. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 5:44 pm by INFORRM
Having unsuccessfully attempted to reintroduce his bill on the Assembly’s recall from its three-year suspension in 2020, Nesbitt appealed for the Secretary of State’s consent for Stormont to debate the issue, which was granted in May 2021. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 4:27 am by Jeremy
In its decision of 3 March 2004 the Advertising Standard Authority censured the advertisement in that it infringed the Prince's right to privacy because the Royal Family's permission to use the photograph had not been requested according to Article 13 of the Code of Advertising Practice. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 7:36 pm by Linda McClain
Pérez-Giménez, a federal district court judge in the District of Puerto Rico, made headlines by granting the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s motion to dismiss in Conde-Vidal v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 3:38 am by Andres
[para 98] As a result of its decision, the court has granted an order disapplying section 1 of DRIPA [para 122]. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
The ICO has published a statement in response to the publication of the Royal Free audit report. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 2:32 pm by Marta Requejo
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) [10] Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari; Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid; Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili; Asa’ad Hamza Hanfoosh Al Zuba’e v CACI Premier Technology, Inc. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 6:11 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
Yet, in both Teva and Royal Pharma, the CJEU pronounced itself only on Article 3(a) of the Regulation. [read post]