Search for: "State v. Hart "
Results 661 - 680
of 1,149
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Dec 2011, 8:20 am
Maryland mandating the state disclose such evidence).Which is the right conclusion to draw? [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 11:33 am
In March 1994, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down one of the most important decisions in modern copyright history: Campbell v. [read post]
22 Mar 2020, 5:12 pm
, 5th Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy V, Nomos/Hart, 2020, Andreas Sattler, Faculty of Law. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 10:17 am
Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:15 am
(CCH Trade Regulation Reporter ¶50,982); and U.S. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 11:00 am
The regulations appear to be a response to the holding in Gattuso v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 3:52 pm
The Supreme Court "is competent to entertain all causes of action unless its jurisdiction has been specifically proscribed" (Thrasher v United States Liab. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 12:53 am
AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Ad [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 8:10 pm
” [via LexisOne] Edwin Hart Turner v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:47 am
Vance v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
Is it an autonomous community, like a nation-state? [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 4:39 am
Hart v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:07 am
See David Hart QC’s commentary to this case here. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 1:21 pm
See United States v. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 7:43 pm
Alternatively, who has the authority to permit parties to make a choice of law: the state or the parties themselves? [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am
The claimant said that by stating in their trade mark application their bona fide intention to use the mark, they caused the public to believe they were associated with the claimant. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 4:59 am
Hart v. [read post]
14 Oct 2023, 3:00 am
” Smith v. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private landowner… [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private landowner… [read post]
