Search for: "Powers v. Powers"
Results 9101 - 9120
of 55,740
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2014, 4:15 am
If, as we have every reason to believe, both types of lineups are more likely to include a guilty party than to include only innocent suspects, there are powerful reasons to say, as Clark does, that sequential lineups are apt to have higher aggregate error rates than simultaneous lineups do. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 1:18 pm
I thought it was a very well-run hearing and thought the opponents of the measure made a particularly powerful case. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 9:32 am
Comm’n v. [read post]
19 Jun 2008, 3:09 pm
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505) is available here. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 5:05 am
Verizon New England v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 7:48 am
Turning to the second question Binnie J reviewed what was then the leading Canadian case on fundamental breach: Hunter Engineering Co. v Syncrude Canada Ltd. [1989] 1 SCR 426. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 8:58 am
When hearing an appeal from the LVT, the UT had all the powers of that tribunal (s.175(4), 2002 Act) and those powers included (reg. 18, LVT procedure regulations) a power to correct errors; (b) it was not possible to allow the parties to revisit a purchase price in the manner suggested; the task of the LVT (and, on appeal, the Upper Tribunal), was to determine a price to be paid. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 8:58 am
When hearing an appeal from the LVT, the UT had all the powers of that tribunal (s.175(4), 2002 Act) and those powers included (reg. 18, LVT procedure regulations) a power to correct errors; (b) it was not possible to allow the parties to revisit a purchase price in the manner suggested; the task of the LVT (and, on appeal, the Upper Tribunal), was to determine a price to be paid. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 12:38 am
This is the effect of R (on the application of KBR, Inc) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2021] UKSC 2, a judgment handed down on 5 February 2021. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 6:25 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2019, 9:01 am
Judge Eady said Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand was correct when he held that the Employment Tribunal had no power to exclude the strike-out judgment from the register. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:15 pm
From an Access to Justice and Civil Right to Counsel perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 7:02 pm
On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court held in New Process Steel, L.P. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2023, 2:54 pm
(c); see Donkin v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 5:00 am
United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 2:07 pm
The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion today in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P v. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 5:46 pm
The decision is Garber v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 11:49 am
Riley v. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
Canadian Combat Sports Law Blog Administrative Law MattersAgainst ATCO: Text, Purpose & Context, not “Implied” and “Express” Powers I have a new paper coming out next year in the Advocates’ Quarterly, entitled “Against ATCO: Text, Purpose & Context, not “Implied” and “Express” Powers“: It is often said that administrative bodies have no inherent jurisdiction, only those powers granted by the… [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 9:01 am
United States (on circuits courts’ power to enhance criminal sentences sua sponte) No. 06-7517, Irizarry v. [read post]
