Search for: "Does 1 through 5" Results 9701 - 9720 of 24,669
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2020, 11:29 am by Patricia Hughes
Klinck and Mackenzie’s last point highlights the reality that not everyone does see the rule of law in the same way. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am by Carolina Attorneys
SIDES Opinion of the Court – 5 – Defendant’s absence from the trial or the fact that the trial court had not conducted a competency hearing before proceeding. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Scott Roehm
(A group that comprises scholars, former U.N. special rapporteurs on torture, retired military and intelligence officers, and human rights advocates walk through that argument’s obvious flaws here, as does Nashiri’s counsel in his mandamus petition below.) [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 6:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
In the District of Columbia, the top rate kicks in at $1 million, as it does in California (when the state’s “millionaire’s tax” surcharge is included). [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 6:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
In the District of Columbia, the top rate kicks in at $1 million, as it does in California (when the state’s “millionaire’s tax” surcharge is included). [read post]
9 Apr 2021, 12:59 pm by Daniel Shaviro
(The OECD norm is about 3%, as compared to, in the US, 2% pre-TCJA and 1% post-TCJA.) [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 5:30 pm
It's 5:30 p.m. and I'm preparing to live-blog Class Actions in Alameda County: Advanced Seminar, which is taking place tonight in Oakland. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:54 pm
Issues before the CourtThere were two issues before the Court: Ceric Oxide, not to be confusedwith cornmeal....(1) Does the English Patents Court have jurisdiction over the infringement claim in respect of the German designation of the patent? [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 3:04 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act [ICCTA] (49 U.S.C. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 12:48 pm
C-42), the Canadian parody exception reads: ‘fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright’.According to the Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339,para 50, fair dealing requires a two-step test: (1) the dealing must be for one of the purpose set out in the Act; (2) the dealing must be fair. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 12:48 pm
C-42), the Canadian parody exception reads: ‘fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright’.According to the Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339,para 50, fair dealing requires a two-step test: (1) the dealing must be for one of the purpose set out in the Act; (2) the dealing must be fair. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 10:26 am by Hadley Baker, Mikhaila Fogel
” [Vol. 1, p. 5] “Candidate Trump signed a Letter of Intent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015…” [Vol. 1, p. 5] “The Russian Embassy made contact hours after the election to congratulate the President-Elect and to arrange a call with President Putin. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 5:39 am by Russell Knight
The parties can ask the court to insist on confidentiality of settlement offers through a protective order. [read post]