Search for: "State v. Bene"
Results 21 - 40
of 77
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2012, 12:00 am
Simmons v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 12:00 am
Simmons v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 1:45 am
The Divisional Court refused to admit the evidence of Dr Kádár, but considered it de bene esse (i.e. on a provisional basis). [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 7:54 am
Use of Force and So-Called Islamic State Veronika Bílková, The Use of Force against the Islamic State (Jus ad Bellum Aspects) Tamás Lattmann, Questions of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law in the Case of a Foreign Military Intervention against the Islamic State Jelena Dinic, Money Laudering as a Form of Financing Terrorism through the Prism of Terrorist Organization “Islamic State of Iraq and Levant” Human… [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 10:29 am
Because racial groups have never been similarly situated in the United States, any way of structuring a political process will confer differential benefits and burdens on different races. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 12:56 pm
" United States v. [read post]
1 May 2023, 4:36 am
§ 21-2,201) precluded the application of either a discount for lack of marketability (“DLOM”) or a minority discount (Bohac v Benes Serv. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am
But they had included a note with their bid documents essentially stating that their pricing was based on a certain amount of backfill type fill but if more stone fill was in fact required then their unit price was to be adjusted. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 5:31 pm
The Ontario Court of Appeal had relied on its decision in Belle River Community Arena Inc. v W.J.C. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 1:14 pm
Bechtold, et al. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 11:03 am
Not in Blackwell v. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 12:22 am
This is furthermore confirmed by the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO which state that an application may not be refused directly after the reply to a communication under Rule 161(1) EPC (Guidelines C-V, 14).1.2.2 The "Invitation pursuant to Rule 137(4) EPC and Article 94(3) EPC" can also not be considered a substantive communication under Article 94(3) EPC.A communication under Article 94(3) and Rule 71(1) EPC is a substantive communication, taking into account any… [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 12:39 pm
The decision of the court may be oral or in 30 writing and shall state the facts it deems essential. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 11:36 pm
Lexion Med., LLC v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 10:46 am
ED refused on the basis of a stated practice not to sign letters of intent prior to the award of a prime contract. [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 4:32 pm
In Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 2:46 pm
However, in Massachusetts v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 2:46 pm
However, in Massachusetts v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 3:45 pm
Crossley, 224 F.3d 847, 859 (6th Cir. 2000) (following Benes v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:39 am
Martel Building Ltd. v Canada, [1997] 129 FTR 249 (FCTD), revd [1998] 163 DLR (4th) 504 (FCA), leave to appeal refused, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc60/2000scc60.html Facts Note: This case deals with the possibility of a tort action in negligence for breach of a duty of care during negotiation of a contract (specifically during the solicitation and evaluation of tendered bids). [read post]
