Search for: "Doe v. Queen"
Results 701 - 720
of 1,310
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2009, 4:26 am
in Flaherty v Attie ;2009 NY Slip Op 51296(U) ; Supreme Court, Queens County ; Markey, J. we see what happens. [read post]
7 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
The Queen, supra. [read post]
30 Aug 2020, 7:21 pm
The Queen in right of Alberta, 1971 CanLII 175 (SCC), [1972] S.C.R. 419; Bain v. [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 1:53 pm
Ch. 801 was relied on in O’Callaghan v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 5:34 am
But some relief came last month in Kabir v. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 11:53 am
Minox Equitities Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 1:00 am
Amateur Youth Soccer Association v. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 8:44 am
They are hearing two linked appeals, R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen (Jamaica), involving the controversial principle of joint enterprise (can someone who incites murder be guilty of it?). [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 12:57 am
The judge said that “If one of the late King’s physicians had kept a diary of what he had heard and seen, this Court would not in the King’s lifetime, have permitted him to print or publish it.“ In 1849 the Queen’s consort brought proceedings to restrain the publication of surreptitiously obtained private etchings made by himself and the Queen (Prince Albert v Strange (1848-9) 2 De G & Sm 652). [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 4:32 pm
What does “AI-generated make-up” mean? [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 4:05 pm
The 1709 Blog notes, among other things, a procedural nasty that has emanated from the Dataco v Stan James database right dispute: a (wait for it ....) an application by the claimant to re-re-re-re-re-amend their Particulars of Claim. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 6:30 am
The state does not yet have the technological means to compel beliefs. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 8:37 am
" Strauss v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 12:16 pm
LIPA does not own any electric generation assets on Long Island, and it does not provide natural gas service. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 7:45 am
” The justices heard oral argument last December in another important privacy-rights case, Carpenter v. [read post]
12 Sep 2014, 12:37 pm
It does not, however, constitute a defense in a proceeding under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law, a basic assumption of which is that a father is responsible for the support of his dependent children, regardless of the acts of the mother as ruled in Aberlin v Aberlin and Goodman v Goodman. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 5:17 pm
Instead, section 69(3) applies: “An action to be tried in the Queen’s Bench Division which does not by virtue of subsection (1) fall to be tried with a jury shall be tried without a jury unless the court in its discretion orders it to be tried with a jury”. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 12:44 pm
The Queen, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819, at p. [read post]
21 Sep 2013, 2:49 pm
This is not to suggest the odd formalism of Lochner v. [read post]
