Search for: "J. A. C."
Results 8221 - 8240
of 19,476
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2015, 6:15 am
When commenting on the decision of Asplin J, this Kat said:This Kat thinks this decision is quite an important one, but not so much in legal terms. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 12:18 am
The theme is "Le précédent en droit international. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 7:10 pm
The right to counsel would extend to (a) visa applicants who are interviewed by a consular officer, (b) applicants seeking admission to the U.S. during secondary or deferred inspection who are interviewed by a CBP officer, and (c) petitioners seeking immigration benefits who are interviewed in the course of FDNS site visits by USCIS investigators. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 4:18 pm
” [152-153] However, in a minority judgment, Zondo J disagreed finding that, “an ordinary reader would have understood the SMS as saying that the Nkandla Report was to the effect that Mr Zuma stole ‘your money to build his R246m home’” [59]. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 8:49 am
Peter J. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 6:21 am
¿Cómo va a mejorar, si no pagan lo que se requiere? [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:15 am
Jeremy draws attention to a recent piece of research by Paul J. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 5:54 am
(Citing SOCAN at pg 456) Although the case concerned the applicability of Canada’s Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42 on foreign entities, Binnie J relied on the real and substantial connection test and private international law principles in concluding that Canada could assume jurisdiction when Canada is either the country of reception or origin of the copyrighted materials. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 6:17 am
COURT: Air Marshal Did Not Violate Law By Leaking TSA Information – Former FAM Robert J. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 11:19 am
Section 73 of the Land Title Act RSBC 1996 c.250 (“LTA”) is such a provision. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 11:09 am
§ 3582(c). [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 7:57 am
C. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Moreover, Arnold J identified a number of critical points in the Dutch reasoning, which, importantly, was based on indirect infringement (equivalent to Section 60(2) of the UK Patents Act) whereas Warner-Lambert's main case had been direct infringement under section 60(1)(c) of the 1977 Act. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:00 am
Louis University Robert Chesney bobbychesney Texas Colleen Chien colleen_chien Santa Clara Luis Chiesa proflchiesa SUNY Buffalo Adam Chilton adamschilton Chicago Andrew Chin chinunc UNC Kenneth Ching kennyching Regent Cyra Akila Choudhury cyrachoudhury Florida International Allison Christians taxpolblog McGill Chester Chuang ChesterChuang Golden Gate Danielle Citron daniellecitron Maryland Bradford Clark profbradclark George Washington Sherman Clark shermanjclark Michigan Brian Clarke… [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 4:09 pm
(a) Warby J (b) Sir Michael Tugendhat (c) HHJ Richard Parkes QC (d) Sir David Eady. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 3:15 pm
Lawrence J. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 5:22 am
On the other hand, whatever the White Queen managed to convince herself of before breakfast, no impossible things are true.And j'accuse is not proof. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 4:00 am
The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 1:57 pm
Luis J. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 11:25 am
Bill C. [read post]
