Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 921 - 940
of 7,356
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2017, 8:58 am
Institute a sui generis law for priority rights in Paris Convention countries equally, regardless of whether those states recognise a legal/equitable distinction. [read post]
Defendant's own testimony established standing; court reminds Government of Simmons, for some reason
31 Oct 2007, 4:58 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 10:57 am
In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 10:57 am
In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 11:31 am
In Rosario v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 11:31 am
In Rosario v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 11:31 am
In Rosario v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:51 am
The appellants’ first alternative, which involves leaving the law as stated in OBG but without a dealing requirement, would dispense with the control mechanism which the House of Lords considered to be both necessary and desirable. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 5:53 am
Torres v. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 6:01 pm
"The aforesaid post also neatly summarises the legal position under the English and the Singaporean laws. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 6:06 am
Arizona v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 10:13 am
Miranda rights suffer another setback in the United States Supreme Court case of Berghuis v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 1:00 pm
In the event that extradition is denied on that basis, Article 3(2) requires the Requested State to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution if the Requesting State so requests and if the laws of the Requested State so allow. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 11:20 am
On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
It was Ratified by the President of the United States on April 17, 1889. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 6:05 am
She was able to speak both Swedish and English. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 7:50 am
See Abbott v. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 3:44 am
Perhaps surprisingly, the Court unequivocally departs from its decision in R (Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 66 (decided less than three years earlier) to endorse the narrower understanding of the obligation set down by the ECtHR in James v UK (App no. 25119/09). [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 1:29 pm
" Feder v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 3:01 am
“The justices tackle partisan gerrymandering again: In Plain English” [Amy Howe, SCOTUSBlog, earlier on Gill v. [read post]
