Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 7,356
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2021, 7:52 am
Ltd v Knight Steamship Co. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 8:08 am
Related Musings:English v. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 3:32 am
This means for proceedings commenced after 1 January 2021, English judgments and awards will no [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 1:37 am
Historically, the English courts have policed the parameters of the “same interest” test strictly: Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 12:36 pm
Here I explore Hak v. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 7:04 am
Secondly, by examining more briefly the significance for the EU and its Member States of the change in the UK’s status from Member State to third country. [read post]
25 Apr 2021, 8:58 am
FCPA Manual Enclosed is an English language and a Chinese language version of the FCPA manual. [read post]
24 Apr 2021, 6:07 am
United States Dep't of Labor, 477 F. [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 7:11 am
See Everson v. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 7:41 am
Am., Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 6:30 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Puerto Rico v. [read post]
20 Apr 2021, 8:02 am
At this point, I envision my next post on App Store matters on May 3, when the Epic Games v. [read post]
20 Apr 2021, 5:10 am
Canada, and Bridgestone v. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 3:19 pm
Crawford v. [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 4:12 pm
Devgan v. [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 8:43 am
Urge CAT to Apply English Law in Swipe Fee SuitsLaw360 – April 12, 2021 (subscription required) Nearly 40 Italian companies have told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that they should be able to rely on English law in their damages claims against Visa and Mastercard over swipe fees. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 4:01 pm
The Supreme court overturned the decision of the lower court, which stated that the President acted unlawfully. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 7:08 am
In 1923, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 4:07 pm
The Secretary of State for Justice during the Second Reading of the Bill described concerns about “annoyance” as a “canard” (see further below). [read post]
