Search for: "STRANGE v. STATE"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 2,234
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2013, 2:02 pm
Lord Neuberger, delivering the judgment of the Court, stated that whether a party was 'making' something was a "a matter of fact and degree". [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 6:39 am
What about an OHP’s report which specifically states that an employee is not disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010? [read post]
15 May 2012, 3:01 am
See River Park, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 10:03 am
And, in Town of Greece v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 1:42 pm
The Court rendered the decision, Jones v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 5:00 am
But the Supreme Court, in its 1977 decision in Zacchini v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:24 pm
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 7:57 am
Strang, (2011) 21 B.L.R. (4th) 1 (B.C.S.C). as follows: I note in Bower v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 12:29 pm
But reconciling Concepcion and AmEx III could lead to some strange results. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 5:10 am
See Kiobel, et al. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 3:58 pm
Originally called Sun Microsystems Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd and another (noted by the IPKat here), the case of Oracle America Inc (formerly Sun Microsystems Inc) v M-Tech Data Ltd and Lichtenstein was marked out by the IPKat as a thunderously bad decision when the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Kitchin J at [2010] EWCA Civ 997. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 1:03 am
A correspondent sent me the pdf of August 16 decision in Northrop Grumman v. [read post]
25 Dec 2022, 2:14 am
United States. [read post]
18 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm
’”Before the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Furman v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 6:00 am
Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284-85 (Tex. 1994); Strange v. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 8:12 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 5:32 pm
See U.S. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 1:24 pm
There is a strong case precedent for Judge Shore’s decision including the the strangely similar case of MacKinney v. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 1:41 am
" [citing Guttman v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 11:34 pm
But, while the word ‘shall' is often mandatory, particularly when used in legislation, it has, depending on the context, been interpreted on occasion as directory or exhortatory only: see for example R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354. [read post]
