Search for: "J. C."
Results 9721 - 9740
of 19,485
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2022, 3:46 am
Kāpēc tā nebija? [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 9:49 am
” Jefferson County v Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 447 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 11:45 pm
As pads did not constitute assistance in using a commode, K&C’s proposal was not lawful. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 7:18 am
Marella or Jason J. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 7:18 am
Marella or Jason J. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 7:18 am
Marella or Jason J. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 1:06 pm
C. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:11 pm
Relying on the Court of Justice’s decisions in Google Spain v APED and Gonzalez C‑131/12 and Weltimmo v Nemzeti Adatvedelmi C‑230/14, the court held that Facebook Ireland is a data controller for the purposes of section 5 of the DPA and can therefore be liable under this Act. [read post]
9 Oct 2022, 4:00 am
Intitulé : Mentor c. [read post]
14 Feb 2021, 4:00 am
C’est le cas de 5 salariés. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 4:08 pm
Divergência Pelo desprovimento do recurso apresentado pelo prefeito de Valença, votaram os ministros Joaquim Barbosa, Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha, Ricardo Lewandowski e Ayres Britto. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 4:41 am
Dale Bloom and Jeremy J. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 7:21 am
In refusing to contradict the ruling of a judge of the same court, Wilson J. said: The Court of Appeal, by overriding itself in Bell v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 2:50 am
Finally Floyd J considered that there was no basis on which the fixture lists could attract copyright protection beyond the selection and arrangement of data. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 11:00 am
District Judge Catherine C. [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 1:26 pm
Blum, San Diego State University Clayborne Carson, Stanford University Dennis C. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 6:30 am
Bouchard, and Laura C. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 11:49 am
C. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 5:37 pm
Here is the voting line: Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, and IV, in which Roberts, C. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 11:50 am
Isso porque o ICMS já teria sido recolhido no Estado de origem da mercadoria, não cabendo ao Estado do consumidor final beneficiar-se pelo mesmo fato gerador já ocorrido no território do outro ente federado”. [read post]
