Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 6001 - 6020
of 7,290
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2010, 11:59 pm
New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 9:37 pm
I decided to specialise in prison law first and then backtrack to A Level and then O Level English law. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 5:00 pm
In Harrington v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
Anonymity The Judge began his judgment by stating the “general rule” that the names of the parties to an action should be included in the orders and judgments of the Court. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:15 am
V .R. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 6:02 am
The Supreme Court found that English law governed. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 11:24 pm
As for (both ante- and post-) nuptial agreements, Wilson J commented in S v S (Matrimonial Proceedings: Appropriate Forum) [1997] 1 WLR 1200, Where other jurisdictions, both in the United States and in the European Community, have been persuaded that there are cases where justice can only be served by confining parties to their rights under prenuptial agreements, we should be cautious about too categorically asserting the contrary. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 8:47 pm
Here’s a very brief summary: In a long line of cases (such as Presbyterian Church in the United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 12:32 pm
(October 18, 2010) "The United States Supreme Court on October 6, 2010, heard oral argument in Connick v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 2:18 am
Those looking for a clear statement that pre-nuptial agreements are akin to contracts in English law will be disappointed. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 4:01 am
This is only the third case in which such a finding has been made – the other two are Pfeifer v Austria (2007) 48 EHRR 175 and Petrina v Romania Judgment of 14 October 2008). [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 10:29 am
The fact that a steel-rollered Evolution machine, so long as it remains steel-rollered, does not infringe and is capable of lawful use as a complete machine in that state is irrelevant. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 8:59 am
At Wednesday’s oral argument in Kasten v. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 2:12 am
Rather it appears to be a toll-free number in the United States. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 1:04 pm
This understanding (which might have been incorrect as a matter of English law) was adopted by the American Framers, and carried forward by antebellum state courts. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 4:42 am
s PR consultant had, incorrectly, stated that P2 did not know P1 this was an unauthorised statement which had been corrected within 3 days [19]. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 4:07 am
Reference was made to the well known English case of Thomas v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 10:10 am
How could I have slogged through Pennoyer v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 12:02 am
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human rights yesterday heard the conjoined applications in Von Hannover v Germany and Springer v Germany. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 4:35 am
His Lordship applied the principle established in Freeport v Arnoldson [2007] E.C.R. [read post]
