Search for: "Specking v. Specking" Results 21 - 40 of 63
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2017, 12:35 pm by Liisa Speaker
’” People v Gioglio, 296 Mich App 12 (2012), quoting Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688, 694; 104 St Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
Mr Speck [Counsel for Actavis], for his part submits that it is not appropriate to fix on the word intention and then embark "on a wide ranging review of how the word 'intention' or 'intended' is used in different areas of the law" when the real issue is what the mental element in the claim is. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 7:47 am by Rory Little
About two-thirds into the opening argument in Jennings v. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 11:29 am
A Environmental Appeal Board ruling has limited the British Columbia Ministry of Environment’s powers to withhold compliance certificates from owners of contaminated land.Burquitlam Building Ltd. and Morguard REIT v. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 6:06 pm by Larry
It consists of small glass vials containing a clear fluid with specks of gold leaf and topped with a small figurine. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 5:00 am by Steve McConnell
For that all-too-short speck of time when we galumph around the planet, each of us should be able to take our best shot at pursuing happiness. [read post]
7 May 2012, 4:18 am by INFORRM
Other resolved complaints listed: Mr Giovanni Di Stefano v Sunday Mail (Clauses 1, 2), 04/05/2012; Mr Michael Speck v The Sunday Times (Clauses 1, 2), 04/05/2012; Peter Reynolds v Daily Mail (Clause 1), 03/05/2012); Jean-Pierre Bestel v Gravesend Reporter (Clause 1), 03/05/2012; A man v Sunday Mail (Clause 1), 03/05/2012; Mr Adam Wood v Daily Mail (Clause 1), 03/05/2012; Croydon Council v The Daily Telegraph (Clause 1),… [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 7:43 am
Emma QC has been involved in some of the IPKat's favourite legal disputes, including Interflora v Marks & Spencer, Matratzen Concord v Hukla and one case which, in this Kat's opinion, should never have been allowed to go to court, Reed v Reed. [read post]