Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Emerson , 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), [ 1 ] cert. denied , 536 U.S. 907 (2002), [ 2 ] is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms.
The Maintenance Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, [1] formally the Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, is a European Union Regulation on conflict of law issues regarding maintenance obligations (e.g. alimony and child maintenance).
This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:34 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Intertemporal law is based on the idea that an action is governed by the law in force at the (local) time of its occurrence. It is therefore irrelevant, for example, that a legal question is only decided by a court at a later point in time, when the previously applicable law is no longer valid.
The Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 [1] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) is a regulation which governs the choice of law in the European Union. It is based upon and replaces the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980.
The presumptive choice of law rule for tort is that the proper law applies. [citation needed] This refers to the law that has the greatest relevance to the issues involved. In public policy terms, this is usually the law of the place where the key elements of the "wrong" were performed or occurred (the lex loci delicti). So if A is a pedestrian ...
(Reuters) -A license dispute between Arm Holdings and Qualcomm went before a jury on Thursday after attorneys from both sides completed closing arguments. The jury in a U.S. federal court in ...
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.