Search for: "G. v. S."
Results 81 - 100
of 17,517
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2022, 12:33 pm
Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cruz v. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 1:45 am
This is a particularly interesting one for the IPKat, because it was his announcement of the referral being made back in May 2008 that apparently resulted in an unusual postscript being added to the Court of Appeal's judgment in Actavis v Merck (IPKat commentary here, decision in full here). [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 10:31 am
Robert G. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 3:01 pm
(California Court of Appeal, Feb. 15, 2023, G Companies Management, LLC v. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 4:20 pm
The current President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Underhill J, in a judgment which contains a comprehensive review of the law on the use of Restricted Reporting Orders and Anonymity Orders in the Employment Tribunal (F v G (Practice and Procedure: Reporting Restriction order) UKEAT/0042/11/DA), has anticipated the arrival of the Extended Restricted Reporting Order. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 12:37 pm
Yesterday, Catherine G. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 11:26 pm
Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over P&G's appeal if the trial court's stay order had the practical effect of denying P&G's motion for a preliminary injunction. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 12:08 pm
To discuss the case, we have John G. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 11:00 pm
# # #DECISIONOnewest Bank, FSB v Harrington [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 1:13 pm
La gobernadora Wanda Vázquez Garced firmó dos nuevas leyes a favor de las víctimas de violencia de género. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 8:44 am
by Dennis Crouch If you recall, Celanese v. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 12:02 pm
Now we have Ontario (Attorney General) v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 1:52 pm
So you can imagine how tickled I am that the Supreme Court is hearing a case about Rule 41(g), Henderson v. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 1:50 pm
United States, 139 S. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 6:58 am
David G. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
Tommy G. [read post]
27 May 2010, 11:16 am
G. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm
A nice summary of the meaning of these requirements in the context of criminal law provisions was provided by Lord Hope in R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345, at paragraph 41: Accessibility means that an individual must know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable: see also Gülmez v… [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 12:40 pm
See United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 10:17 am
See United States v. [read post]