Search for: "Wells v. Heard*"
Results 8661 - 8680
of 9,202
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2024, 8:56 pm
[xii] However, the DSC’s understanding of the Canadian proceedings and the nature of the summary judgment granted by the Canadian court, as well as its attempt to align common law concepts with those of UAE law are rather questionable. [read post]
23 May 2023, 7:11 am
Support for this conclusion may be found in Dagenais v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 7:15 pm
Crawford observed that defendant was traversing from lane to lane on both sides and was speeding as well. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:44 am
Work to date was calculated at £1,819.20, the balance of £503.65 was an estimate of work yet to be incurred (it may well be more depending, for example, on the number of occasions for which it is necessary to fix hearings for the second debate; and this debate required more diets than anticipated or estimated for). [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
Coercive control is not criminalized in Canada,[4] despite the well documented understanding about the serious psychological and liberty-based harms caused.[5] Since coercive control is not a criminal offence, victims do not report the abuse either, or if they do, we do not have statistics that reflect it. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:44 am
Work to date was calculated at £1,819.20, the balance of £503.65 was an estimate of work yet to be incurred (it may well be more depending, for example, on the number of occasions for which it is necessary to fix hearings for the second debate; and this debate required more diets than anticipated or estimated for). [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 10:50 am
,” citing Utah v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 3:14 pm
I’ve selected — arbitrarily — several protocols to see how well they address some of the complications of real legal proceedings, particularly trials involving witnesses. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 6:58 pm
First, Troxel v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 4:01 am
… V. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 5:00 am
State v. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 1:44 pm
Round Two: rehearing by the AHRC; an appeal from the AHRC’s 2020 decision (Amir and Siddique v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 8:48 pm
In Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2021, 2:30 am
In particular, the principle of the right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC is fully respected, since the parties have presented their arguments on the merits of the case and the board has based its decision on these arguments. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 2:08 am
Question 3 is likely to have the greatest impact, as it boils down to whether the President or the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation had the power to relocate the Boards (or departments of the Office within the meaning of Article 15 EPC in general) outside the locations mentioned in Art. 6(2) EPC or to whether "Munich" in Art. 6(2) should be interpreted merely as the city with that name (not including Haar) or a (not well-defined) greater Munich area. [read post]
16 Dec 2022, 3:38 am
A draft decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 10:23 am
We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancements with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as well as ribonucleic acid (RNA) tests were not even in contemplation of the legislature. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 12:59 pm
This difficult categorization is largely artificial yet it sets out to illustrate that many of the factors applicable to these high-profile cases are not applicable at lower level cases, as well as other factors that are not applicable to the higher-level proceedings that have tremendous influence at the lower levels. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 12:59 pm
This difficult categorization is largely artificial yet it sets out to illustrate that many of the factors applicable to these high-profile cases are not applicable at lower level cases, as well as other factors that are not applicable to the higher-level proceedings that have tremendous influence at the lower levels. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 11:34 am
The Supreme Court has held that “willful” means “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty” (US v. [read post]
