Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 1841 - 1860
of 6,183
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2013, 10:00 am
A copy of United States of America v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:33 am
" [para 63] [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 8:30 am
(ECF No. 11, ¶ 1.) [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 10:30 am
Rebaja de 3% para contribuyentes con ingreso bruto menor a $100 mil “Hoy, para reducir aún más la carga contributiva de nuestra fuerza laboral, estamos dando una reducción adicional de tres (3) por ciento para aquellos contribuyentes cuyo ingreso bruto no exceda de $100,000; esto, para un total de 8% para los individuos que generen $100,000 o menos”, explica la Ley Núm. 40-2020. 2. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 4:03 am
In practice, however, U.N. bodies have requested advisory opinions in situations where there is an underlying dispute between states. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:49 am
It is not permissible to "mix and match", so to speak, unless the sign to be registered is a collection of individual signs (the situation referred to in para. 107 of Szpunar's opinion). [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
In the alternative – if that analysis was wrong – the judge found that the decision to make and affirm the Order must be part of a process of determination of the bank’s civil rights of the kind analysed by Lord Clyde in R (Alconbury) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2003] 2 AC 295 in paragraphs 145 to 160. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
One starts with the usual binary (¶100)--individual or collective speech as a function of its (lawful) limitation. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 7:09 am
" Aecom Technology Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:26 am
R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Respondent); R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) (FC) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 28, 22/6/2011 – read judgment; press summary here Unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal are still subject to judicial review by the High Court, but only… [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 7:57 am
, 2011 BCSC 166 at para. 13 foll’g Kendall v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 7:57 am
, 2011 BCSC 166 at para. 13 foll’g Kendall v. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 9:30 pm
"Para Todos Los Niños,” a webinar by the Latino Judges Association on the school desegregation case Mendez v. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 3:01 am
In Sitrick v. [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 12:25 pm
The actual or potential use of registered marks in another form is irrelevant when comparing the signs [para. 25] (emphasis added).This is consistent with paragraph 34 of Mitrakos v EUIPO – Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS), which refers to paragraph 38 of Pico Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE). [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 1:06 pm
Following decisions in such cases as Connelly v RTZ, Lubbe v Cape and Ngcobo v Thor Chemicals, the present case contributes to the development of the law relating to the jurisdiction of English co [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 5:08 am
Johnson & Johnson, 2014 WL 5343318, Order at ¶1 (Okla. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 5:36 am
Cady, 413 U.S. at 441; see United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 8:45 am
Practicing Law Institute – 2013 Igartúa de la Rosa v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 12:19 am
Austin v UK and Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) It is in this context that the cases of Austin v UK and Von Hannover (No 2) are considered, in order to argue that certain of the proposals currently being put forward are echoed in dominant themes within the judgments. [read post]
