Search for: "P. v. Case" Results 901 - 920 of 25,677
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Dec 2009, 9:26 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Belgium: A Missed Opportunity (Goettingen Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 519, 2009). [read post]
19 May 2017, 3:35 am by INFORRM
On 4 May 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its judgment in the case Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’, answering two related questions: ‘(1)      Must the phrase ‘is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the… [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 9:27 am by Alexandra Allan
In Cosmotrade SA v Kairos Shipping Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 1904 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered the question of whether English law allows a Limitation Fund to be constituted by way of a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 8:04 am by CMS
Neither P&O Ferries, nor the local authority of Biscay were a part of the original challenge by BAI (Case T-116/01 and T-118/01 P&O European Ferries and Disputacion Foral de Vizcaya v European Commission). [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
Today’s case of the day, Gucci America, Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 3:17 pm by Lawrence Cunningham
The front page of the New York Times (May 31, 2011) contains a great story by Peter Lattman, quoting me, on the pending case of Simkin v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:05 pm
On Monday, November 30, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Renico v. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 6:00 am
Supreme Court decided the landmark case 14 Penn Plaza v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 6:00 am by Victoria Blachly
  From time to time we will publish recent local cases or legislative bills: Wilson v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 9:21 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the appeal in R. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 11:35 am by Aimee Hess
Continue reading → The post Royalty Interests and Antitrust: Waggoner v. [read post]