Search for: "Rome v. State"
Results 581 - 600
of 725
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2010, 6:31 am
In Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau [2010] EWHC 231 (QB), Mr Justice Owen applied Rome II’s provisions to reach the conclusion that the compensation to be paid by the MIB (acting as the UK’s compensation body under the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) to the claimant as a result of an accident in a Spanish shopping centre car park in December 2007 in which the other driver was German (and uninsured) should be assessed in accordance with Spanish law, as the law of the… [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 4:26 am
In Zuid-Chemie v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 3:29 am
The language of Regulation 13(2)(b), which stated that "the compensation body [here the MIB] shall compensate the injured party...as if...the accident had occurred in Great Britain", was clear on this point. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 1:33 am
Part V: Cultural Property. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 6:02 am
Articles on Rome II and Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements The current issue (Vol. 73, No. 1, January 2009) of... [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 4:35 am
His Lordship applied the principle established in Freeport v Arnoldson [2007] E.C.R. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 1:41 pm
In GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 8:52 pm
" United States v. [read post]
18 Sep 2010, 9:49 am
To reach this conclusion, the opinion walks through the history of arguments over corporate liability since WWII, ranging from Nuremberg to the considered refusal of the states-party to include corporations in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 8:20 pm
To reach this conclusion, the opinion walks through the history of arguments over corporate liability since WWII, ranging from Nuremberg to the considered refusal of the states-party to include corporations in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:49 pm
To reach this conclusion, the opinion walks through the history of arguments over corporate liability since WWII, ranging from Nuremberg to the considered refusal of the states-party to include corporations in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 3:40 am
However, Article 32 of Rome II stated that Rome II applied "from 11 January 2009,.. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 9:19 pm
MISAT (6) , Owusu v. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 2:59 am
v=idAUo_fyHW4 His explanation starts at about the two-minute mark.3. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 12:02 am
The second one is authored by Bernard Haftel, who lectures at the University of Orleans, and discusses the uniform interpretation of the Rome I Regulation (Entre Rome II et Bruxelles I. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 7:20 am
State, 73 Alabama, 366; State v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:30 am
United States (Patently-O) CAFC finds claim construction arguments waived on appeal: Enovsys LLC v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 2:49 am
Harding v Wealands [2007] 1 AC 1, under the pre-existing English rules of applicable law). [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 4:06 am
Article 32 of Rome II states that: "This Regulation shall apply from 11 January 2009". [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 3:00 am
In fact, consideration of such factors is absent from the elements of all other crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, save one: the war crime, set forth in Article 8(b)(xxi) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, of commission of outrages upon personal dignity.This crime requires that theperpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the dignity of one or more persons [to a] degree ... generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity.A footnote to the definition… [read post]
