Search for: "Does 1 - 23" Results 7221 - 7240 of 15,479
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jul 2016, 9:15 am by EEM
Workshop: Forced Migration Research Network Research and Strategy Workshop, Sydney, 16 August 2016 [info]Publications:Australia: Why Stopping the Boats does not Solve the Problem – Part 1 (Jesuit Refugee Service, July 2016) [text]Closing the Country: Where to Next for Australia’s Asylum Seekers? [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 8:06 am by Bill Marler
”  Table 1 summarizes cheeses and cheese types subject to the 60-da [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Hanson appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.The Appellate Division indicated that Hanson’s primary arguments on appeal were as follows:1. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 10:24 am by Eugene Volokh
I would affirm the entry of an injunction, but reverse and remand for the trial court to impose an injunction that does not unduly infringe on the [O’Neill]’s First Amendment rights. [read post]
The putative class action alleged that McAfee: (1) charged higher automatic renewal prices than they disclosed they would, and (2) advertised reference prices that were misleading because they were not actual, accurate prior sales prices. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 2:05 am by INFORRM
The Supreme Court’s latest judgment, which upholds the criminal defamation provision in the IPC, does not curb free speech, it is argued in The Times of India. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 7:56 am by Jenny Gesley
As the referendum itself does not trigger the exit process, the question arises: What happens next? [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 4:04 am by INFORRM
  The Advocate General made three points in response: Given that Article 15(1) specifically envisaged data retention regimes, national laws establishing  such a regime were in fact implementing Article 15(1) (para 90). [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 1:54 pm by Eugene Volokh
But the second meaning of equity does add something to the first one. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 3:30 pm
 It basically just says (1) we hereby grant you permission to file a reply, and (2), sure, we've decided to hear your Rule 23(f) (denial of class certification) appeal.That's not a decision on the merits. [read post]