Search for: "Does 1-96"
Results 1601 - 1620
of 2,165
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2011, 1:00 pm
Paragraph 1 bars extradition: (a) if the person sought has been tried and convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same offense (but does not preclude extradition if the competent authorities in the Requested State have decided not to prosecute such person for the same acts or have decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against the person for those acts); or (b) if prosecution of the offense or execution of the penalty is barred by lapse of time under the laws of… [read post]
31 May 2011, 9:00 am
Article V bars extradition when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same offense, but does not bar extradition if the competent authorities in the Requested State have declined to prosecute for the acts for which extradition has been requested. [read post]
31 May 2011, 5:08 am
Directive 2 (IPPC) 96/61/EC (as codified by 2008/1/EC) required heavy industry to get permits before they could operate; it also provided for public participation in the permitting process. [read post]
26 May 2011, 6:02 pm
Those issues, and the Court’s findings on each issue, are outlined below. 1. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:47 pm
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 36801 JAMES M. [read post]
25 May 2011, 9:00 am
Article 1 obligates both States, subject to the provisions of the treaty, to extradite to the other persons charged with or convicted of extraditable offenses. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
The meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in s. 133 was previously considered by the House of Lords in R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 18; [2005] 1 AC 1. [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:52 am
Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, there was no evidence of any continuous ongoing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants after the file was returned and, therefore, the continuous representation doctrine is not applicable (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168-171; Marro v Handwerker, Marchelos & Gayner, 1 AD3d 488; Daniels v Lebit, 299 AD2d 310; Wester v Sussman, 287 AD2d 618). [read post]
22 May 2011, 4:03 am
The broadest claim is Claim 1 which reads:‘1. [read post]
20 May 2011, 6:14 am
Q: What does it all mean? [read post]
19 May 2011, 6:26 pm
” Restatement, § 96 (1)(a) (emphasis added). [read post]
19 May 2011, 1:00 pm
Article 5 bars extradition when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same offense, but does not bar extradition if the authorities in the Requested State have decided not to prosecute or have decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against the person sought. [read post]
19 May 2011, 6:04 am
See Romano, supra, 96 N.J. at 80. . . . [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:00 pm
Luxembourg International Extradition Treaty with the United States October 1, 1996, Date-Signed February 1, 2002, Date-In-Force Status: July 8, 1997. [read post]
18 May 2011, 10:23 am
Super. 91, 96 (App. [read post]
18 May 2011, 10:23 am
Super. 91, 96 (App. [read post]
15 May 2011, 11:07 am
Ct. 510, 1 L. [read post]
13 May 2011, 6:07 pm
Mindful of this principle, we decline the plaintiffs’ invitation to predict that the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals would adopt the specific provisions of the Restatement advanced by the plaintiffs.Id. at 96 (citing Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:00 pm
Article 4(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted for political offenses. [read post]
12 May 2011, 9:00 am
The discharge of the person sought from custody pursuant to this Article explicitly does not prejudice subsequent rearrest and extradition upon later delivery of the extradition request and supporting documents. [read post]
