Search for: "State v. Master"
Results 1821 - 1840
of 3,868
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2011, 8:08 am
In this week’s case (De Sousa v. [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]
4 Feb 2020, 9:30 am
Flanagan 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]
22 Oct 2014, 4:30 am
Fronczak v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 12:41 pm
In Bush v. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 9:16 am
In Allen 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]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
Farm Bureau Fed'n v. [read post]
15 Nov 2024, 9:18 am
In Bucklew v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
Walker Estate 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]
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]
22 May 2014, 7:16 pm
Sibelius 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]
25 Feb 2008, 1:46 pm
Co. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
Farm Bureau Fed'n v. [read post]
