Search for: "Masse v. Masse"
Results 8901 - 8920
of 10,246
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2009, 7:58 am
WOMEN AND MARGINALITY: An Issue of Gender JusticeIntroductionGender: Women and HIV LAYA MEDHINI, DIPIKA JAIN and COLIN GONZALVESNational Policy for the Empowerment of Women (2001)Women, Trafficking and Statelessness in South Asia PAULA BANERJEESection V. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 7:10 am
Massachusetts, 2009 Mass. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 1:33 am
BTI Consulting Group's recent research on corporate counsel's use of outside law firms was part of wider periodic research on a variety of legal trends, says Michael Rynowecer, president of Wellesley, Mass. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 1:08 am
Much of the discussion involved the relevance of the Supreme Court's Inwood v. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 8:36 pm
Oct. 23, 2007) (Campbell bars mass actions, in addition to class actions, for punitive damages); Williams v. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 1:41 pm
More importantly, while I'm in full support of having those words in a Reader's Digest quiz, or maybe in fine literature, I'm not sure they really fit in a judicial opinion that's at least allegedly supposed to be accessible to the masses. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 9:04 am
My chambers would be more than happy to make the trip en mass. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 6:55 am
(Mass.) [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 9:56 am
AG, 454 Mass. 63, June 11, 2009). [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 5:07 am
Mass. 2007). [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 3:54 am
(3) Data retention remains doubtful in terms of fundamental rights compliance: in the ECHR, S & Marper v UK questions mass monitoring of the unconvicted, Copland v UK reiterates that traffic data is covered by Article 8 (as I argue here); the German courts are considering various challenges (summarised by Digital Rights Ireland: 1 | 2), and DRI itself is engaged in a challenge to the Directive. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 12:15 am
State v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 3:07 pm
(3) Data retention remains doubtful in terms of fundamental rights compliance: in the ECHR, S & Marper v UK questions mass monitoring of the unconvicted, Copland v UK reiterates that traffic data is covered by Article 8 (as I argue here); the German courts are considering various challenges (summarised by Digital Rights Ireland: 1 | 2), and DRI itself is engaged in a challenge to the Directive. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 12:56 pm
More on Concord v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 10:50 am
As it turned out, Ford couldn't spend the money fast enough, so he simply stopped paying dividends, a move that lead to the famous case of Dodge v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 8:32 am
Ricci v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 8:28 am
This at least is the conclusion one can draw from Case T-28/08, Mars v OHIM, in which the Court of First Instance of the European Communities confirmed that its Community trade mark for the three-dimensional shape of its Bounty bar was invalidly registered (see commentary on this decision here). [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 7:16 am
Some analysis of the new vote in BC can be found here and here.In 2005, I emphasized that these two-tiered reform systems (deliberative bodies then mass democracy) are quite counterproductive because they invite back in at the second stage all the pathologies of mass democracy that you are precisely seeking to avoid by handing over decision-making power to the deliberative body. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 8:34 am
Fraser v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 4:54 am
See Wells v. [read post]
