Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 8221 - 8240
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2014, 7:43 am
The Court cited Article 249 EC which states that ‘a decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed’ and the case of AssiDomän Kraft Products AB v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECR I-5363 (Case C-310/97). [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 7:17 am
By Victoria C. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
These matters do not include the question of justification (see section 15(1)(b)), which is a proportionality exercise. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:00 am
If so, for each subject property, (a) Identify the subject property; (b) Describe the nature and location of the loss or damage to the subject property; (c) … [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 8:41 am
SVOX also had no shareholders during the time period covered in Fuqua’s complaint.The case is No. 14 C 216. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 11:15 am
Mar. 26, 2010), and Bobadilla v. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 7:34 am
Superior Court Senior Judge Fred B. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 5:00 am
In deciding NAM v SEC the Court noted that Zauderer v. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 9:01 pm
” It advised that a lawyer could not use an agent to “friend” a witness in order to find out information on the witness’s personal page because, it announced, such a request is deceptive under that state’s version of Rule 8.4(c), of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 4:28 pm
This point was recently driven home in the June, 2014 Miami, Florida case, United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 11:34 am
Five days left to vote for The Appellate Gourmet(c) Blog! [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 9:00 am
Moreover, since the mere use of goods is not infringement, Article 3(5) should not apply to those imports and exports for personal use or consumption (this could be hard to reconcile with Case C-98/13 Blomquist v Rolex, on which see Jeremy's post here, if Regulation 608/2013 on customs enforcement is deemed applicable: should it be?) [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 9:55 am
Krousos v Zoning Board of Adjustment of Borough of Paramus, 2014 WL 3628862 (NJ Sup. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 9:39 am
See Gravel v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 8:15 am
The first report found: “(a) some missing, slipped and displaced roof tiles; (b) a safety warning at risk label on the central heating boiler; (c) some structural movement of the property with some cracking internally and externally and with some slopes to floors. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 6:05 am
Niven v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:59 am
R.C.M. 705(c)(1)(B). [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:59 am
R.C.M. 705(c)(1)(B). [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 5:31 am
Enjaian's claim against Sergeant Dorta will be dismissed without prejudice.Enjaian v. [read post]
