Search for: "MacDonald v. MacDonald" Results 221 - 240 of 541
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Feb 2012, 7:41 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In his February 22, 2012 Erie County Opinion and Order in the case of Santos v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 10:14 am
  The foundation of this branch of the law is the need to protect the integrity of the administration of justice: MacDonald Estate v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:33 pm by Georgialee Lang
MacDonald 2013 BCSC 1204, the Law Society successfully sued notary public Ms. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 7:51 pm
Effectively the change moves closer to the Canadian position articulated by Sopinka J. in MacDonald Estate v. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 9:00 pm by David Jacobson
The former chief executive Peter Macdonald, did not appeal his 15-year ban from company directorship and $350,000 fine. [read post]
20 May 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
MacDonald & Anor v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Scotland), heard 2 May 2019. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Thursday 2 May, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of MacDonald & Anor v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Scotland). [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
MacDonald & Anor v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Scotland), heard 2 May 2019. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
MacDonald & Anor v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Scotland), heard 2 May 2019. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton) v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL, heard 7 Mar 2017 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd & Ors v Bosworth & Anor, heard 10-11 Apr 2017 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, heard 27 June 2019 In the matter of an application by Anthony McIntyre for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 24 October 2019 Halliburton… [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 2:49 pm by Christopher Bird
Not, sadly, this not the Court of Appeal's final decision on the landmark trial case that struck down Criminal Code provisions on prostitution.Rather, it is the the Court of Appeal's preliminary ruling, allowing the Attorney General's request for a stay to prevent those provisions from being struck down until the appeal has been determined.The Court followed the test set forth in RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. [read post]