Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 6,181
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2010, 4:36 am
On Friday, in State v. [read post]
6 Jun 2020, 2:15 pm
SSWP V WT and Redcar and Cleveland BC (HB) (2019) UKUT 372 (AAC) Very late to this one (I missed it) but a brief note on a doomed attempt in the Upper Tribunal to challenge The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hockley & Anor (2019) EWCA Civ 1080 on how to assess bedrooms for the bedroom tax. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 5:16 am
Wong v Yeung-Ha 2020 NY Slip Op 31832(U) June 11, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505276/18, Judge: Karen B. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:21 am
RU (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 651 - Read Judgment Further to our recent post on the deportation of foreign criminals, the matter has once again come to the attention of the Court of Appeal. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 9:55 pm
(¶ 66). [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 1:49 am
"In the matter of the Workers' Compensation Claim of Peter Gaze v State of Wyoming, et al. [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 10:13 am
(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2015) Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi, has written a report on the recent Supreme Court of India case, Reserve Bank of India v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 8:38 am
The CJEU today (in case in C-421/13, Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, see here) confirmed that the representation of the layout of a retail store, such as the one depicted below, may - subject to certain conditions - be registered as a trade mark. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:26 am
In particular, the “Times” says that the Court of Appeal failed to follow Jameel (para 20a) wrongly held that the inclusion in the article of details of the information being investigated by the police was fatal to the Reynolds defence (para 20c) and misapplied the Reynolds requirement of verification, setting a standard that was too high and wrong in law (para 20(d)). [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 8:09 am
There's definitely something wrong ...The IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 relating to silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here, and this Kat here). [read post]
9 Jun 2006, 5:49 am
United Kingdom, at paras. 46-49; repeated in Kalogeropoulou and Others v. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 6:23 pm
Today the Supreme Court of Canada issued a very important privacy decision in R v Jarvis. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 6:23 pm
Today the Supreme Court of Canada issued a very important privacy decision in R v Jarvis. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 2:41 pm
See Phillips v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 9:10 am
However, the assessment of the inherent distinctive character of a sign must be made only by reference to the goods and services and the perception of the sign in question (Henkel v OHIM, C-456/01 P at para. 35). [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 5:42 am
” (quoting Avacus Partners, L.P. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 9:12 am
See United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 12:32 pm
North Highland, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 12:32 pm
North Highland, Inc. v. [read post]
