Search for: "ROYAL V. STATE" Results 1121 - 1140 of 2,233
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Feb 2008, 3:25 pm
Parker    Eastern District of Kentucky at CovingtonHABEAS CORPUS 08a0053p.06 Royal Ins Co v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 1:31 am by Adam Wagner
In October 2004 the UK’s Royal Military Police concluded that the applicants had been involved in the deaths of two British soldiers, Staff Sergeant Cullingworth and Sapper Allsopp, ambushed and murdered in southern Iraq on 23 March 2003. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Second, General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v State of Libya. [read post]
4 May 2020, 2:07 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
The article dissects the legal reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum[1] and argues that the majority simply got it wrong principally by conflating ‘the jurisdictional and cause of action aspects of an ATS suit’. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 8:33 am by Chantal DeSereville
The Mikisew had not been consulted on either of the omnibus bills at any stage in their development or prior to the granting of royal assent. [read post]
25 May 2014, 7:50 am
David gave examples from Kohler Mira v Bristan Group [2013] EWPCC 2, Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Another v Apple Inc. [2012] EWHC 1882 and Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Another v Apple Inc. [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 where dotted lines were held to indicate transparency. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 5:36 pm by David Oscar Markus
United States and First American Financial v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 3:05 am
It has quite a style of cause: The Queen (on the application of Wheeler) v. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 5:00 am by elizabethw
” That was of course King George V speaking to the British Empire, an innovation which has since become a traditional feature of Christmas Day TV schedules. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 9:25 am by Karen Jensen
After 40 days of trial spanning over the course of a year and a half, the Court in Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General) ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) to pay general damages of $100,000 and special damages of $41,000 to a member of the RCMP for harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering at the workplace. [read post]