Search for: "Britain v. Britain" Results 1281 - 1300 of 1,618
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2010, 8:14 pm by cdw
  Arizona imported sodium thiopental from Britain after domestic supplies expired. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:43 pm by Adam Wagner
The decision, which brings to an end six years of government attempts to avoid the issue, opens the possibility that even those facing life sentences for very serious crimes could in future shape Britain’s elections. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 12:38 pm by Steve Hall
Two years ago, when a splintered Supreme Court approved lethal injection as a means of execution in Baze v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 9:47 am by Steve Hall
Archimedes Pharma, a specialist in supplying pain relief, is the only licensed manufacturer of sodium thiopental in Britain, according to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 8:43 pm by cdw
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Ricky Lee Earp v. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 2:24 am by INFORRM
  On Friday 8 October 2010 in the High Court in Dublin, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns gave judgment in the case of Hickey v Sunday World. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 8:04 am by Rosalind English
  The question was whether the removal of an Afghan asylum seeker to Greece under Regulation 343/2003 was incompatible with his rights, not just under the ECHR, which is part of UK domestic law, but also under the Charter, which is not (when these rights were attached to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 as the Social Chapter, Britain used its opt-out to avoid them becoming part of British law.) [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 5:28 am
And how far can any cuts go before Britain is reduced from being a European power, ready to join the U.S. and lead NATO in future operations, to the military equivalent of Italy or Spain? [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 3:54 am by Adam Wagner
Updated Gamu Nhengu, a popular former-contestant on the X Factor TV series, has been ordered to leave Britain. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 2:52 am by war
If the latter be attributable to the hypothetical addressee of the Patent, such a finding would support a holding of obviousness. [53]  That way of approaching the matter has an affinity with the reformulation of the “Cripps question” by Graham J in Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd[57]. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 11:01 pm by Mark Bennett
At Balkinization, guest blogger Sharon Dolovich explains why the Supreme Court’s Farmer v. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 11:00 pm by Adam Wagner
Opinion: “Gary Flood v Times Newspapers” – William Bennett, Inforrm’s Blog: We posted on this case, relating to media freedom of expression, here. [read post]