Search for: "Paras v. State"
Results 1941 - 1960
of 6,183
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2017, 8:17 am
¶ 1, DE 61, Ex. 1.[...]B. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:10 am
As Lord Carnwath concluded after his illuminating discussion of the standard required of planning reasons (at paras 35-42), the question will be “whether the information so provided by the authority leaves room for ‘genuine doubt … as to what (it) has decided and why’” (at para 42, citing Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263). [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 2:58 am
Issue 2, emanation of State of Iraq SOMO did not pursue its argument that it was entitled to state immunity as an emanation of the State of Iraq or because it was exercising sovereign authority Issue 3, identification of the creditor By a majority of 3:2, the Supreme Court held that the creditor under the letters of credit was SOMO alone: Lords Clarke (paras 19 to 26), Lord Sumption (paras 61 to 65) and Lord Hodge (paras 74 to 78) accepted… [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 6:53 am
Belgium and Belcacemi and Oussar v. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 10:52 am
Replaced 'EU law' in last para with 'EU Charter fundamental rights'.] [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 10:52 am
Replaced 'EU law' in last para with 'EU Charter fundamental rights'.] [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 1:00 am
R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 5 Dec 2017. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:33 am
It would be easy to frame this issue in classic policy terms of government regulation v. the marketplace. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:33 am
It would be easy to frame this issue in classic policy terms of government regulation v. the marketplace. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 4:49 am
En cuanto al mandato constitucional sobre fianza no excesiva, el informe positivo puntualiza e intenta adoptar lo resuelto en Hodgdon v United States, 365 F. 2d 679 (1966), que es un caso del Octavo Circuito que establece que una fianza no es inconstitucional sólo porque el imputado no puede prestarla por razón de falta de recursos. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 8:16 am
The official and his wife were evacuated from Tashkent, the location of the USAID headquarters in Uzbekistan, by the State Department, for evaluation. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 2:54 am
Germany, para. 15; Genner v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 4:10 pm
The Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the issue in the case of HRD Corporation v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 6:37 am
The loss of actual and potential customers constitutes irreparable harm, as recognized in Telewizja Polsat SA v Radiopol Inc, 2005 FC 1179 (CanLII) at para 22. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 2:55 pm
J.A. 3540–41 ¶ II. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 7:31 am
(D.I. 31 ¶ 3.) [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 7:31 am
(D.I. 31 ¶ 3.) [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:13 pm
The judgment states that where a corporation “is in no sense responsible for authorising or requiring” the breach and the employee is acting against the employer’s wishes in committing the breach, the liability may be vicarious but not direct (para. 49). [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 11:40 am
B [2010] EWHC 1626 (Comm), paras [25-31] (court rejected challenge based upon tribunal’s failure to apply Spanish law); Ruby Roz Agricol LLP v The Republic of Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 439 (court declined to apply expansive interpretation of Kazakh law).5See English Arbitration Act 1996, Section 69; Enterprise Insurance Company Plc v U-Drive Solutions (Gibraltar) Limited [2016] EWHC 1301 (QB) (court lacked jurisdiction over appeal because Section 69 conditions were not… [read post]
