Search for: "Redmond v Redmond" Results 121 - 140 of 200
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2011, 3:06 pm by Doug Isenberg
Apple Talk An inside look at the testing of Windows Phone 7 In part three of a behind-the-scenes look at the development of Microsoft’s new phone software, Ina Fried takes a look at Redmond’s massive testing operation. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 9:52 pm by SupremeCourtHaiku
Psychotherapist Patient communications Privilege applies Opinion [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 12:52 pm by Evidence ProfBlogger
Similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.609(a)(1) provides that Evidence that a witness other than the accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to rule 5.403, if the crime was punishable... [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 2:12 am by Victoria VanBuren
Applying the test for establishing new privileges enunciated by the Supreme Court in Jaffee v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 1:20 pm by Michael Azzi
In Redmond v Van Buren County, No. 297349, the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim of an easement by prescription or private dedication, holding that both the plaintiffs and defendants were entitled to access the disputed land under a common law rule recognizing private dedication. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 11:56 am by Curt Cutting
Redmond: Court of Appeal publishes previously unpublished opinion, creates split of authority Behr v. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 9:54 am by David Hart QC
As Sedley LJ had previously said in the Divisional Court, “[f]reedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having” – Redmond-Bates v DPP. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 8:06 pm by Donna Bader
  On April 19, 2011, the blog reported on an unpublished opinion filed in Miller v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 1:57 am by sally
Regina v Redmond [2011] EWCA Crim 203; [2011] WLR (D) 174 “Although a defendant, who had pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the duty chargeable on cigarettes, was not liable to pay the duty if he was not holding the cigarettes at the excise duty point and had not caused them to reach it, he was liable to pay VAT on the consignment. [read post]
25 May 2011, 1:45 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Davis v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1258 (24 May 2011) Redmond, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 203 (24 May 2011) Smith, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1296 (24 May 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Whaley v Whaley [2011] EWCA Civ 617 (24 May 2011) Best Buy Co Inc & Anor v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL [2011] EWCA Civ 618 (24 May 2011) Mumtaz Properties Ltd, Re [2011] EWCA Civ 610 (24 May 2011) High Court… [read post]