Search for: "D Ace"
Results 1761 - 1780
of 2,078
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2012, 9:12 am
Although disparate impact may be relevant evidence of discrimination such evidence is insufficient to prove a constitutional violation even where the Fourteenth Amendment subjects state action to strict scrutiny, the plurality explained, citing Board of Trustees of Univ of Ala v Garrett (8 ADD ¶8-198). [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 9:09 am
This principle, articulated by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in the Alison D. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 7:27 am
Aseguran que era como intentar dormir en el Hollywood Bowl el día que se presentaron los Beatles. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 2:26 am
On the first question, the Judge drew parallels to ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] AC 1158 which established, as a starting point, that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 2:41 pm
Harland (11th Cir. 2004) (looking to the reactions of onlookers to determine whether a student's expression "cause[d] (or [was] likely to cause) a material and substantial disruption"); [citing also various Confederate flag display cases]. [3.] [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 4:05 pm
” per Lord Brown-Wilkinson at 550 C-D and F. [read post]
14 Sep 2006, 9:40 am
Update de noviembre: (1) Parece que la corte se queda en siete, ver acá; (2) En el artÃculo hay una errata importante: Moliné no renunció, lo destituyó el Senado. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:33 am
The result of this invidious doctrine, as formulated in Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] 1 AC 168, meant that “if two people set out to commit an offence (crime A), and in the course of that joint enterprise, one of them (D1) commits another offence (crime B), the second person (D2) is guilty as an accessory to crime B if he has foreseen the possibility that D1 might act as he did. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 12:59 pm
Then there’s the more traditional, and probably less effective, I’m-holding-your-business-card-up-in-front-of-you-and-saying-that-I-will-call-you-next-Tuesday-at-10-am-as-we’ve-just-agreed-to maneuver, if you’d like to use their business card as the set piece. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 4:00 pm
In 1995, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani became emir when he seized power from his father, Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani, in a peaceful coup d'état. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 9:43 am
GWU Law News covered the ACS event, and video is posted online. [read post]
17 Feb 2022, 4:01 am
You’d never memorize formulas and only try to solve an actual problem for the first time on test day. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 1:00 pm
For the average user it would be marvellous: all you can eat Napster, not for nothing but for a reasonable monthly fee. 80% of punters said they'd be happy with that, in the music industry's own poll. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 8:40 am
The claim was brought under s 140A-D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974”) and alleged that the relationship between the parties was rendered unfair by the fact that Canada Square had not disclosed to Mrs Potter the existence or amount of the commissions it had retained. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm
As Atheist Ireland told the Sunday Times (sub req’d), the Garda investigation “highlights a silly, silencing and dangerous law”. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 12:46 pm
Lo que hace el gobierno con las retenciones es alevoso, escuché el otro dÃÂa. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am
(d) Whether the time limit under the HRA 1998 should be extended; (e) Whether, if the claim is successful, the Court of Appeal was right to have interfered with the trial judge’s quantification of damages. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am
Hyundai Motor America, Inc (EDTexweblog.com) District Court S D California: False marking affirmative defenses – Laches & unclean hands are in, advice of Counsel is out: Oakley, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 5:51 pm
However the court possesses a discretion to grant leave for a further action to be brought where this is required by the interests of justice. d. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 8:39 am
Buenos días amigos, el Juez que conoce mi demanda la ha declarado IMPROCEDENTE, lo que en cristiano significa que para el Magistrado los fundamentos que he expuesto no corresponden a la justicia constitucional sino a la ordinaria. [read post]
