Search for: "Roman v. Roman"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 2,150
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2009, 3:06 pm
Public Facebook Profiles A number of cases in Canada have already admitted photographs or other information posted on a public Facebook page as evidence relevant to issues raised in the litigation.24 In one case, the discovery of photographs of a party posted on a MySpace page was the basis for a request to produce more photographs that were not posted on the site.25 In Kourtesis v. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 10:05 am
In Doe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, (NY Ct. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 3:14 am
Subramanium v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 1:56 pm
It is probably only a question of time here, as a Canadian court has held that a man has to reveal his Facebook profile as part of his obligation to disclose relevant documents.In Leduc v Roman, a case involving a motor vehicle accident, Mr Leduc had a Facebook profile. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 11:20 am
Roman, 2009 CanLII 6838 (ON... [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 6:05 pm
v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE … [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 4:37 pm
Hat tip to my young - and learned - friend John Salloum for alerting me to para 28 of Leduc v. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 2:08 am
Holdings: On December 14, 2007, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued Hite v. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 7:16 am
On March 17, 2009, the First Superior Court of the First Judicial District of Panama affirmed a ruling for lack of jurisdiction in Sara Grant Tobal et al v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 9:23 am
Alright, so in terms of case law on this area, the one that we’ll put on the show notes is the Sopinka v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 9:23 am
Alright, so in terms of case law on this area, the one that we’ll put on the show notes is the Sopinka v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 4:15 am
Employee dismissed after being found guilty of 14 of 16 allegations of misconduct by the Civil Service Law Section 75 hearing officeMatter of Roth v Manhasset Union Free School Dist., 2009 NY Slip Op 01807, Decided on March 10, 2009, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentJeffrey S. [read post]
14 Mar 2009, 2:39 pm
Gandhi v. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 5:52 pm
LaPoint v. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 1:43 pm
" Watson v. [read post]
8 Mar 2009, 12:20 am
The first major decision of the Supreme Court on this point - Central Bank of India v. [read post]
7 Mar 2009, 2:19 pm
I do not mean simply that the Assembly is considering an ostensibly secular bill that has some subtle and insidious purpose to target the Roman Catholic Church and is, therefore, unconstitutional under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 1:36 am
Supreme Court decided, in Wyeth v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:54 pm
Cavanaugh Williams covers Leduc v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 8:50 am
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; … [read post]
