Search for: "STILL v. STATE" Results 101 - 120 of 49,859
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jun 2024, 12:55 am by INFORRM
Data Privacy and Data Protection DLA Piper has an article on the state of play of the data-sharing frameworks in the EU and UK. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 12:43 am by Rose Hughes
Notably, § 112, r 6 does not state that the Specification must also describe equivalents of that structure. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 9:40 am by Giles Peaker
The review decision in part stated I refer to R v Oxford CC ex p Doyle (1997) concluding that a Child Arrangement Order does not mean the Children are reasonably expected to live with both parents. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 7:37 am by Eric Goldman
Craigslist * Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court * Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 5:20 pm by Bill Marler
 E. coli O157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2] respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and… [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 8:33 am by familoo
That review has still to be published some four years later[3]. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 6:12 am by Keith Mallinson
As stated by the judges’ decisions in Unwired Planet v Huawei and TCL v Ericsson, respectively: “Based on my assessment of both experts, I am sure the disagreement represents cases in which reasonable people can differ. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 4:20 am by Jonathan Santman (Brinkhof)
No final award of costs is deemed necessary because main proceedings are still to follow, but the court does order an interim award of costs ex R. 211 RoP. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:21 am by Michael Oykhman
Regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy, a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 noted that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, location or circumstance if the person does not expect to be secretly recorded or observed. [read post]