Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1201 - 1220
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Patent No. 5,128,099 entitled CONGRUENT STATE CHANGEABLE OPTICAL MEMORY MATERIAL AND DEVICE and owned by Energy Conversion. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 10:37 am
Supreme Court, in Coy v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 2:40 am
The courts should take into account agreements such as the MoU and should assume that they would be adhered to, following RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2009) UKHL. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 4:03 pm
Let us take, for example, the leading case of Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, concerning a well known model with a drug problem. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 11:17 am
In an ACS Issue Brief, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a Santa Clara University law school professor, explains why the Supreme Court’s narrow opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 6:41 am
Of course, we should usually follow a clear and constant line of decisions by the EurCtHR: R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator[2004] UKHL 26; [2004] 2 AC 323. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 4:22 am
Pierre v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 5:00 am
Davis, CV 11 633 AC (D. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 12:58 pm
Gonzalez Cause: Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting, Unfair Competition, Unfair Trade Practices, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution Court: District Court of Oregon Judge: Magistrate Judge John V. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:08 am
M. reliance was placed on AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKUT 353 (AC) but the Court found that concerned refinancing permitted under 4(6) insofar as it does not exceed the original borrowing. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:08 am
M. reliance was placed on AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKUT 353 (AC) but the Court found that concerned refinancing permitted under 4(6) insofar as it does not exceed the original borrowing. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 3:56 am
Seinfeld v. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 7:51 am
Applying Stack and Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546, the judge at first instance accepted this contention, stating that he had to consider what was just and fair between the parties having regard to the whole course of dealing between them. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 5:07 pm
Or just hunt up the person's v-card. [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 8:54 am
It was only in 1996, in the celebrated case Common Cause v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 1:00 am
By implication, this amounted to a monthly periodic tenancy in accordance with the decision in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 3:51 pm
Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth [2011] EWCA Civ 1285In an appeal under s.204 Housing Act 1996, should the County Court determine disputed factual issues? [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 3:51 pm
Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth [2011] EWCA Civ 1285In an appeal under s.204 Housing Act 1996, should the County Court determine disputed factual issues? [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 8:31 am
"[A] party's awareness of the requirements of the CSSA is not the dispositive consideration under the statute" (Lepore v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 7:59 am
On November 10, 2011, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Pilgrim, et al. v. [read post]
