Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 81 - 100
of 7,344
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2024, 3:55 am
” Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
The committee was composed of the director of curriculum, instruction, and educational services; high school principal; junior high school principal; library media specialist; chair of the English department; and a “[p]rocess [c]onsultant. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
The committee was composed of the director of curriculum, instruction, and educational services; high school principal; junior high school principal; library media specialist; chair of the English department; and a “[p]rocess [c]onsultant. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:21 am
To further justify deference, the court cited A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, also known as the Belmarsh 9 case, in which the English House of Lords held that deference would be given to the executive’s decision on the assessment of public emergency and the counter-measure devised after the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 5:17 am
Furthermore, the Romanian procedure cannot be considered compatible with EU law, as the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights X. and Y. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am
., Thomas had also previously earned a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and English Literature with Shakespeare Studies. [read post]
6 May 2024, 7:42 am
The case is Carlyle Aviation Partners LLC et al. v. [read post]
5 May 2024, 8:32 am
Over to the team to report on Edwards Lifesciences v Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences (UPC_CFI_249/2023:"The Edwards Lifesciences v Meril preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings at the UPC on EP 3 763 331 protecting a “Prosthetic valve crimping device” (see here) started with a bang (or should this UPCKat say, crimp?) [read post]
1 May 2024, 6:56 pm
[2] Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688. [read post]
1 May 2024, 6:05 pm
The essay in English, Simplified and Traditional Chinese follows. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 7:58 pm
In Butler v. [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
In 1969, in Tinker v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 7:30 am
On 17 April 2024, the Court of Appeal of the UPC handed down its decision concerning the language of proceedings in the (undoubtedly ground-breaking) case of Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 1:32 am
There is a short English phrase – not suitable for print – but featuring the word “cake” that sums this principle up nicely. [1] When reading this point, the authors were reminded of the decision of Vos J in Fresenius v Carefusion [2011] EWHC 2969 in which it was held that if a patentee consented to the revocation of its patent, it was not appropriate for it to be compelled to… [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 11:28 pm
Service out pursuant to a contractual agreement In NW Corp Pte Ltd v HK Petroleum Enterprises Cooperation Ltd,[17] the contract between the claimant and defendant, who were Singapore and Hong Kong-incorporated companies respectively, contained this clause: ‘This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the English law [sic]. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm
For example, in Liu v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 6:52 am
Circuit Court of Appeals’ AMA v FTC case from 1980). [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 12:51 pm
As to English’s arguments regarding the indemnity scheme in the contracts, the court found that the interpretation was at least ambiguous enough that summary judgment was inappropriate, stating: While we are not prepared to settle conclusively these interpretation disputes at the summary judgment stage, English’s proffered interpretation is, at the very least. reasonable. [read post]
