Sentences with phrase «because civ»

«Because CIV is a virus similar to the flu in humans, there is no specific antiviral medication available.

Because CIV is a relatively new virus, most dogs have not been exposed to it before.

Not exact matches

People who are «adjusted» and / or «comforted» with «Po - rn», are not, I repeat, are not social dev - i - ants just because they have an affluency toward «photos» and / or «videos» of las - civ - ious car - nal ambiguousity.

Even dogs who have had CIV can get it again, because the acquired immunity that comes with exposure to the virus doesn't last forever [source: South Loop Animal Hospital].

CIV is a relatively new virus, so almost all dogs are susceptible to infection when they are newly exposed because they have not built up natural immunity.

Within 5 months this virus spread to 23 states.1 And because most dogs are naive to the virus, virtually every naive dog exposed will become infected.2 Clinical signs associated with CIV can be confused with canine cough making accurate diagnosis difficult.

Because most dogs have not been exposed to Dog Flu (CIV H3N8 and CIV H3N2), almost 100 % of those exposed are fully susceptible.

Because the clinical signs of CIV closely resemble those of other canine respiratory diseases, any dog showing symptoms should be seen by a veterinarian.

It's inovative because there is so much to discover and so much to do with the addictivness level of the «one more turn» idea from Civ 5.

On appeal, the case became known as I v I [2009] EWCA Civ 412 and the Court of Appeal took the unusual step of reporting the case — even though an agreement was reached — because the Boker - Ingram case had been so widely reported.

Warwickshire County Council v M [2007] EWCA Civ 1084 appears to have made it even more difficult for parents, here a one and two - year - old were placed by their mother voluntarily in short - term care, where they remained under care orders because of their mother's substance abuse and violent partner (even though this relationship was over and he was living in Africa).

The new rules on budgets and sanctions nearly destroyed the reputation of our civil justice system for fairness with the disastrous Mitchell decision when # 506,000 of costs was disallowed from a budget because it was filed the day before the hearing, not seven days before (Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 2 All ER 430).

The claim had not been compromised as the judge had stated and so the judge had not been bound by BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 393, [2003] All ER (D) 196 (Jul)-- where parties have settled on all issues save costs before a trial or where a trial is incomplete, the court should not, save in a reasonably obvious case, embark on making an order for costs because the court will have no proper basis of agreed or determined facts upon which to base its decision.

In Huck v Robson [2002] EWCA Civ 398, [2003] 2 WLR 1340, (an RTA case), where the claimant made a 95 % offer on liability apparently purely for tactical reasons and not because of the realistic likelihood of such a finding being made, Schiemann LJ held that:

«The without prejudice rule does not apply to those passages in the witness statement,» said Framlington in Barnetson v Framlington Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 502, [2007] All ER (D) 429 (May), «because they refer to exchanges that took place before the commencement of litigation or any basis for potential litigation and, therefore, at a time when there was no dispute.»

The Court of Appeal sought to shut down attempts to use PHA 1997 to advance stress claims which would otherwise fail because of the decision in Sutherland v Hatton [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] All ER (D) 53 (Feb).

This is not the place for a comprehensive review of developments, and nor is one necessary because, in Re F (Children)[2016] EWCA Civ 546, which was decided after Judge Williams made her decision about FW's separate representation, the President of the Family Division (with whom Arden LJ agreed) set out the highlights of the jurisprudence, starting at § 35 of his judgment.

Thus, in Syska (Elektrim SA) v Vivendi Universal SA [2009] EWCA Civ 677, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument of a Polish party in administration that an arbitral tribunal in England and Wales no longer had jurisdiction over a dispute because the arbitration agreement had been annulled by Polish bankruptcy law.

R (Sky Blue Sports and Leisure Ltd) v Coventry City Council [2016] EWCA Civ 453 The Court of Appeal ruled that a loan of # 14.4 m made by the Council to the company that operates the Ricoh Arena, ACL, did not constitute a State aid, because a private investor in the Council's position might also have made the loan.

In Wilson v HSE [2009] EWCA Civ 1074, the EAT held that the hurdle that it erects is a high one, but the Court of Appeal disagreed and held that it is a lower hurdle, partly as a matter of interpreting Cadman and partly because of the argument that a high hurdle could place a burden of proof on to the claimant, contrary to EC law.

Inspiration is found especially in Erste Group Bank [2015] EWCA Civ 379, a case in which forum non conveniens was applied even against an England - domiciled defendant because there had already been submission to Russian jurisdiction.

Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 401 CA, May 23 2017 [2017] IRLR 748 The EAT had been wrong to overturn an employment tribunal's finding that a consultant cardiologist had been dismissed because he made protected disclosures

In Simms v Islington LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 1083, [2008] All ER (D) 146 (Oct) the Court of Appeal held that it was open to the authority to conclude that the applicant was not in priority need because of his drug addiction, even though evidence had been submitted that he required accommodation to help him get stabilised during his drug treatment process and that his GP had provided a further report which stated that without accommodation the appellant would revert to regular drug use.

The trend internationally is that bidding on a keyword «would not in and of itself be sufficient to establish infringement because... it must also be shown that the advertisements did not enable the average consumer to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to originated from... [the trademark owner] or from [the advertiser]»: see lnterflora v Marks and Spencer plc, [2014] EWCA Civ.

A previous column commented on the decision of Treacy J at first instance in Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 678, [2010] All ER (D) 229 (Jun) denying the claimant, the ex chief executive of the trust, the payment of the amount of a compromise agreement over and above her notice money because the decision to pay her that extra was ultra vires, on the basis that it was «irrationally generous» (see 159 NLJ 7390, p 1460).