Search for: "MORRIS v. STATE" Results 1801 - 1820 of 2,157
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2014, 10:50 am by Guest Blogger
Despite “the difficulty & awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State,” armed federal intervention in state affairs must be permitted.[4]During the Convention, on three different occasions, Madison tried to grant the federal government this absolute “negative” (what we now call a veto) over all state legislation. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP finance) The UK IP Office issues a Virgin trademark ruling that contrasts the Israel approach (IP Factor) EWHC (Pat): Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires flexible approach to meaning of ‘same parties’: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 4:01 am by Guest Blogger
For example, in 2017, the CERD stated it was “deeply concerned” that “[v]iolations of the land rights of indigenous peoples continue” and that “[c]ostly, time-consuming and ineffective litigation is often the only remedy, in place of seeking free, prior and informed consent — resulting in the State party continuing to issue permits which allow for damage to lands. [read post]
20 Oct 2024, 4:45 am by Frank Cranmer
Section 2(2) Forfeiture Act 1982 The case of Philip Morris v James Morris, Kate Shmuel and Gregory White [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch), summarized by Rosalind English of 1 Crown Office Row, concerned the forfeiture rule under section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 as it applies to the estates of people who travel to Switzerland for assisted dying. [read post]
” She also noticed Kim’s attitude toward her negatively changed following her discontinued investigation into Morris. [read post]
” She also noticed Kim’s attitude toward her negatively changed following her discontinued investigation into Morris. [read post]