Search for: "B. R."
Results 6361 - 6380
of 55,717
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Dec 2019, 5:54 am
Specifically, “No person may be authorized by a court to sue for the benefit of other alleged similarly situated persons in a case brought for violations of section 31-62-E4 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies, unless such person, in addition to satisfying any judicial rules of practice governing class action certifications, demonstrates to the court, under the appropriate burden of proof, that the defendant is liable to all individual proposed class members because all… [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 5:54 am
Specifically, “No person may be authorized by a court to sue for the benefit of other alleged similarly situated persons in a case brought for violations of section 31-62-E4 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies, unless such person, in addition to satisfying any judicial rules of practice governing class action certifications, demonstrates to the court, under the appropriate burden of proof, that the defendant is liable to all individual proposed class members because all… [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 5:01 am
The court concluded that, "[b]y ignoring the foreseeable risk of violence that his actions created, Mckesson failed to exercise reasonable care in conducting his demonstration. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2019 QCCA 358. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 10:07 pm
” Hague Convention, art. 13(b) (“grave risk” defense). [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 10:06 pm
The Second Circuit observed that Under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, a court is not bound to order the repatriation of a child if “[t]here is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 10:03 pm
In Díaz-Alarcón v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 10:02 pm
Judge Elrod first focuses on Part III-B, which established the predicate for the saving construction: In Part III-B, again joined by no other Justice, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that because the individual mandate found no constitutional footing in the Interstate Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses, the Supreme Court was obligated to consider the federal government's argument that, as an exercise in constitutional avoidance, the mandate could be read not as a command… [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 9:51 pm
Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention establishes an exception that Anderson asserted here. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:08 pm
A story in the newspapers this morning has made me think once again about some of the weaknesses in Irish law relating to damages for data protection infringements. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 1:47 pm
Speakers: Nieve Rubaja (Argentina), Luciana B. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 8:19 am
Ciccone d/b/a Ciccone Door Services, (U.S.D.C. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 8:19 am
Ciccone d/b/a Ciccone Door Services, (U.S.D.C. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 5:00 am
Section 8542(b)(1), in the case of Balentine v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
However, applications under sub-Rules 7-9(2)(b) to (e) are not so restricted, and consideration may be had of other appropriate evidence. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 10:52 pm
Onyoja Momoh, The interpretation and application of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention in cases involving domestic violence: Revisiting X v Latvia and the principle of “effective examination” A key interpretation and application issue in the scheme of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention is whether judges should investigate first the merits of the defence before considering whether protective measures are adequate or whether… [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 6:32 pm
Jones, Benjamin B. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 8:00 am
Risky and uncertain privilege and work-product concerns arise when a company designates an in-house attorney to serve as a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition witness. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 8:00 am
Risky and uncertain privilege and work-product concerns arise when a company designates an in-house attorney to serve as a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition witness. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 6:22 am
B.16.In essence, the appellants claim the right to live in Canada, but to be free from the obligations and language of any laws they do not choose to accept. [read post]
