Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D" Results 7781 - 7800 of 10,369
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jun 2024, 9:31 am by Giles Peaker
AK brought the present JR, asserting that: a) the policy discriminates indirectly against women without proper justification contrary to s19 and thus s29 of the Equality Act 2010 b) Westminster was in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in failing to assess the policy’s impact, and c) the policy amounted to a breach of Article 14 ECHR obligations, read with Article 8. [read post]
21 Mar 2021, 6:30 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
López Dávila* La abogacía y los servicios jurídicos en general están experimentando una auténtica revolución en otras latitudes del planeta. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 11:57 pm by sevach
Así, no es infrecuente por desgracia que la corporación municipal “penalice” al Secretario o Interventor minorándole sus retribuciones ( complemento específico, por ejemplo) por alguna de estas inconfesables razones: a) Por haber emitido informes que apoyaron tesis del equipo de gobierno anterior; b) Por haber obtenido la plaza en el Ayuntamiento o Diputación pese a que había un candidato “oficial” llamado al cargo;… [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 10:40 pm by Stephen Page
That approach was adopted by Strickland J in Parker v Parker [2010] FamCA 664 (3 August 2010). [read post]
31 May 2011, 9:00 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
Article V bars extradition when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same offense, but does not bar extradition if the competent authorities in the Requested State have declined to prosecute for the acts for which extradition has been requested. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 9:44 am
  The key relevant provisions here relate to the "effective integration" principle (responsibility for addressing impact assigned to the appropriate level and function; ¶ 19 (a)) and the "appropriate action" principle (as a function of placement in the chain of causation  and extent of leverage in addressing impacts; ¶19(b)). [read post]
24 May 2012, 4:06 pm by Alex Gasser
  ALJ Shaw determined that International Patent Application PCT/NZ93/0004 did not disclose the first, second, third or fourth steps of claim 1 of the ‘896 patent, or steps (b),(c), (d), (e), and (g) of claim 12. [read post]