Not exact matches
(Sharon Begley at STAT has a nice analysis
here as well as a link to the patent
appeal board's 51 - page explanation of its
judgment.)
To make this point, Pope Francis
appeals here in this address and elsewhere to John XXIII's words at Vatican II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia: «For the deposit of faith, the truths contained in our sacred teaching, are one thing; the mode in which they are expressed, but with the same meaning and the same
judgment [eodem sensu eademque sententia], is another thing.»
The Court of
Appeal judgment under challenge is available
here.
The Court of
Appeal judgment, which begins with Lord Justice Longmore's declaration that «Legal aid is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society», is available
here.
The Court of
Appeal judgment — which overturned an earlier Administrative Court
judgment — is available
here and was reported on for the Justice Gap by YLAL co-chair Ollie.
This decision was then
appealed by the various parties leading to the General Court
judgments that were
appealed, leading to the two
judgments discussed
here.
Here is the
judgment appealed from.
The Court of
Appeal judgment — which overturned an earlier Administrative Court
judgment — is available
here and was reported on for the Justice Gap by Ollie.
And
here, since it appears from the statement in the order of the Court of
Appeal that the question whether the Syndicalism Act and its application in this case was repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment was considered and passed upon by that court — this being a federal question constituting an appropriate ground for a review of the
judgment — we conclude that this Court has acquired jurisdiction under the writ of error.
The
appeal judgment in the case of Gudanaviciene & others is available on BAILII
here.
Here the Ontario Court of
Appeal held that because the employee's actions were not mere errors in
judgment, but intentional, numerous, dishonest acts that occurred over a period of time, and that were neither insignificant nor trivial, and given his role in the company, the employee was in breach of the employer's policies and therefore he was properly dismissed for cause.
The Supreme Court of Canada rendered
judgment today, granting application for
appeal in PHS Community Services Society v. Canada, the case of the Insite supervised injection site in B.C. I attended the hearings in Vancouver at the Court of Appeal last summer and posted my notes here on
appeal in PHS Community Services Society v. Canada, the case of the Insite supervised injection site in B.C. I attended the hearings in Vancouver at the Court of
Appeal last summer and posted my notes here on
Appeal last summer and posted my notes
here on Slaw.
But in case you'd like to venture an opinion yourself, expert or inexpert, you can consult a number of photographs of the two machines in similar poses at the end of the
appeal judgment, only two of which are reproduced
here (the Dyson is on the left; click on an image to enlarge it):