Search for: "State v. Core" Results 7381 - 7400 of 7,977
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2014, 7:27 am
Another body of international law—the jus ad bellum—governs when it is lawful for a state to go to war, including in self-defense. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 4:00 am by Malcolm Mercer
Over thirty years ago, Chief Justice Dickson for the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Action Travail des Femmes v. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 5:25 am
" There were no barriers in US TM law, because of decisions like 1968's Chanel v. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 9:25 am by Anushka Limaye
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
27 Aug 2022, 11:02 am by Camilla Hrdy
And this for me was the core insight of your paper: Agencies' authority to disclose trade secrets is not governed by norms, it's not even ultimately the regulations that matter; it's the agencies' enabling statutes passed by Congress that dictate their power to disclose trade secrets they collect. [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 6:53 am
The purpose of this Convention is "to notify to other States where a launching State's space objects are located in order to prevent collision" and to make "identifiable the potentially liable launching State for damage cause by a space object. [read post]
16 May 2011, 8:08 pm by The Legal Blog
Justice KG BalakrishnanThe Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors. v State of Karnataka has examined the law relating to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 3:19 am
  It is meant to suggest the state of the global human rights project, its challenges and trajectories, and to itemize activities in states that suggest reason for "optimism" or "concern. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 12:31 pm by Josh Blackman, Seth Barrett Tillman
This 1995 memorandum, however, at its core, considered a different question: whether a nepotism statute applies to federal judges. [read post]