Search for: "State v. Redfern" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Dec 2020, 9:56 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
" (Para 1.55, Redfern, Hunter et al, Redfern & Hunter on International Arbitration, 2015). [read post]
5 May 2019, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
Redfern, of Kayser & Redfern, LLP, of Manhattan, represented the husband. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
" However, the Circuit Court dismissed this contention, explaining that such a claim "is not cognizable in a civil case," citing United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 3:10 am
Michael Reisman, Babel and BITs: Divergence Analysis and Authentication in the Unusual Decision of Kilic v. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 2:16 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Lord Toulson stated that considering the principles of Target Holdings v Redfern, a monetary reward which reflects neither loss caused nor profit gained by the wrongdoer, such as the one argued by the appellant, would be penal. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 9:44 am by scanner1
The Montana Supreme Court has issued an Unpublished Opinion in the following matter: DA 11-0273, 2011 MT 326N, STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 10:25 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
”While Born argues for “structural limits” (p. 1265) on the power of the law of the seat, Redfern et al seems to content with the state of affairs. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 11:30 pm by Matthew Hill
The families argued that Re McKerr had been rendered obsolete by the recent Strasbourg decision of Šilih v Slovenia (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 37. [read post]
19 May 2011, 5:38 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
” (formatting altered) (also note, Redfern et al quote the previous edition of Gary Born stating the same thing as Redfern et al do at p. 149).In this case, the law of the arbitration agreement would be Indian Law as the law of the seat is Indian Law. [read post]
13 May 2011, 10:46 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
[Due to some problems with Blogger, our yesterday's post on Videocon v Union of India got deleted. [read post]