Search for: "State v. Masters"
Results 1701 - 1720
of 3,598
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2011, 8:08 am
In this week’s case (De Sousa v. [read post]
28 Nov 2021, 4:34 pm
Last Week in the Courts The judgement in Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department QB-2020-002120 was published this week. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 4:57 pm
Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 9:30 am
A nice master's thesis or dissertation chapter could be written by someone with the requisite legal and historical skills and access to the National Archives. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:23 am
Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 10:54 am
The court’s decision in State v. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 12:12 pm
Kim, 2008 BCSC 1710, Master Keighley at para. 14 states: A party seeking to have a second examination preformed by a practitioner practicing in the same speciality or discipline as a practitioner who has already examined a person faces an uphill battle: Hothi v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 10:59 am
As stated by the court in Hamalainen v. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 9:30 am
Flanagan v. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 4:30 am
Fronczak v. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 9:16 am
In Allen v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 12:41 pm
In Bush v. [read post]
15 Nov 2024, 9:18 am
In Bucklew v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 6:18 am
In relation to the first issue, he began by noting that the only basis upon which it could be said that the information intercepted from the claimants’ phones constituted ‘intellectual property’ as defined in section 72(5) was if it was ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’. [22] Lord Neuberger rejected the argument put forward by the Secretary of State (as an interested party) that “commercial information” should be… [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
Walker Estate v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
Farm Bureau Fed'n v. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 9:46 pm
Yesterday, on 28 April 2009, the ECJ delivered its judgment in case C-420/07 (Meletis Apostolides v. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 1:46 pm
Co. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am
Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 10:41 am
Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in EMOI Services, L.L.C. v. [read post]
