Search for: "Paras Shah" Results 81 - 96 of 96
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2020, 8:02 am by Elliot Setzer
Patja Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast discussing the congressional response to coronavirus: And Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck shared an episode of the National Security Law Podcast discussing local quarantine authority: Hayley Evans and Paras Shah analyzed an International Criminal Court appeals chamber decision authorizing an investigation into possible war crimes committed in Afghanistan, including those allegedly committed by American forces and Afghan… [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 5:55 am by Tess Bridgeman
Hathaway (@oonahathaway), Yuval Shany (@yuvalshany1), Paras Shah (@pshah518) and Clara Apt (@claraapt25) (January 26, 2024) Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case) By Just Security (January 26, 2024) Unpacking the Int’l Court of Justice Judgment in South Africa v Israel (Genocide Case) By Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) and Siven Watt (@SivenWatt) (January 26, 2024) International… [read post]
13 May 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Paten v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 12:09 am by Vikram Raghavan
., Judges Higgins, Koojimans and Burgenthal, Arrest Warrant case, para 51). [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 4:03 am by Benjamin Wittes
An excellent survey is provided by Shah, N., Promises to Keep: Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture in US Terrorism Transfers (Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, New York, 2010). [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 7:29 am by Norman L. Eisen
Eisen, Siven Watt, Joshua Stanton and Fred Wertheimer, The Untold Strength of Tax Crimes in Manhattan DA’s Case Against Former President Trump, Just Security (May 24, 2023) Daniel Hemel, The Question of Tax Fraud in Manhattan DA’s Case Against Former President Trump, Just Security (May 23, 2023) Karen Friedman Agnifilo interview by Paras Shah, The Just Security Podcast: An Indictment of Donald Trump, Just Security (March 31, 2023) Joshua Stanton, Norman L. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 4:21 am by Marie Louise
(IAM) Two tools for selecting a suggestive trademark over a descriptive trademark (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) TRIPS Council (24-25 Oct 2011) will discuss Para 6 implementation, Australia’s tobacco plain packaging bill 2011 and enforcement (KEI)   Global – Patents Private and social costs of patent trolls (IP finance) Featured resource: ArchPatent (Patent Quality Matters)   Australia APO: Assuming next-day delivery of mail an ‘error’: TransLang Technology v… [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 4:32 am by Durga Rao
In this connection, the respondents have referred to para 6(i) to (x) and (xiii) of the petition, wherein it is alleged that the applicant company M/s Caparo Maruti Ltd was incorporated by Mr. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Norman L. Eisen
This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 9:05 am by The Legal Blog
Sathasivam Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court in Shah Nawaz v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 10:33 am by Jenny Gesley
The following is a guest post by Supreetha Sampath Kumar, a foreign law intern at the Law Library of Congress. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is… “-- Charles Evans Hughes, 11th Chief Justice of the United States.[1]ADNAN M L KARIMBarrister-at-Law The Supreme Court has declared the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution illegal and void ab initio; condemning military rules in explicit language[2]. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 9:01 am by Just Security
Later today the Just Security podcast, with host Paras Shah, will feature Professors Oona Hathaway, Adil Haque, and Yuval Shany discussing the case. [read post]
1 Oct 2012, 11:54 pm
The Court, however, expressed its reservation about the correctness of the view taken in Sadanandan Bhadran’s case (supra) especially in para 9 thereof and accordingly referred the matter to a larger Bench. [read post]