Sentences with phrase «against civ»

Instead, blood samples from these dogs can be tested for antibodies against CIV.

It is considered a «lifestyle» vaccine, which means that the decision to vaccinate a dog against CIV is based on the risk of exposure.

Not exact matches

Even judged against Firaxis» other mobile games, Civ: Rev and Ace Patrol, this is small and crude.

Introducing VANGUARD ® CIV H3N2 / H3N8, a bivalent canine flu vaccine with demonstrated safety and efficacy for protection against both highly contagious H3N2 and H3N8 strains of canine influenza virus (CIV).

Non-structural protein 1 (NS1) truncated (NS1 - 126, NS1 - 99 and NS1 - 73) or deleted (DNS1) H3N8 canine influenza viruses (CIVs) were tested for their safety, immunogenicity and protection efficacy as live - attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) against wild - type (WT) H3N8 CIV.

All recombinant NS1 mutant viruses were attenuated in vivo (mice) and ex vivo (canine tracheal explants), but able to confer, upon a single intranasal immunization dose, complete protection against challenge with WT CIV H3N8.

Prevention against both types of CIV remains the best course of action to reduce the risk of outbreaks and develop herd immunity within your community.

We do strongly recommend that you vaccinate your canine companion against the Canine Influenza Virus (CIV).

* «There is no way to predict whether it will be CIV H3N2 or CIV H3N8 that infects your area, so it is better to help protect against both strains; this bivalent vaccine allows you do to that efficiently.»

The new bivalent vaccine helps protect dogs against the two strains of the virus known to be circulating in the U.S., CIV H3N2 and CIV H3N8.

Vaccines against Dog Flu (CIV H3N8 and CIV H3N2) are available through your veterinarian.

We recommend vaccination with a bivalent CIV vaccine that protects against both strains of the virus.

We are strongly recommending to vaccinate against Canine Flu for all dogs: Canine Influenza Virus H3N2 / H3N8 (CIV).

Vanguard ® CIV H3N2 / H3N8 is a canine flu vaccine that protects against both strains of the canine influenza virus.

«There is no way to predict whether it will be CIV H3N2 or CIV H3N8 that infects your area, so it is better to help protect against both strains,» said Dr. Carey, speaking on behalf of Zoetis.

Zoetis Inc. has started shipping Vanguard CIV H3N2 / H3N8, the company's newest vaccine against canine influenza virus.

Thankfully there is a vaccine, which we carry, designed to protect against disease caused by the CIV H3N2 strain.

Zoetis provides the Vanguard CIV H3N2 / H3N8 vaccine for protection against both highly contagious strains of CIV.

Ask your veterinarian about Vanguard ® CIV H3N2 / H3N8, a single vaccine that helps protect dogs against both strains of dog flu in the U.S.

What can I do to protect my dog against H3N2 CIV?

At this time, it is also unknown whether the current CIV vaccine, developed to protect against a different strain of the virus (Influenza A H3N8), will be effective in preventing Influenza A H3N2.

Swimming against the prospect of clever diplomacy and careful use of traders and relationships that some of the civs introduced in Rise & Fall offer, we selected the Mongols to play, one of the new old civs brought in with the DLC.

Christoph Hartmann, president of 2K, says Civ5 «takes the franchise further by offering players a more immersive experience with deeper strategies; heightened tactical combat; vast, realistic landscapes to explore, battle over and claim as their own; and an in - game community hub where Civ fans can share content and compete against each other without leaving the game.»

To set aside — on either basis — is «exceptional» (see eg, Lawrence Collins LJ in Dixon v Marchant [2008] EWCA Civ 11, [2008] 1 FLR 655: the need for finality must be balanced against the requirement of «justice» (Barder)-RRB-.

Thorpe LJ provides some helpful procedural advice which may be incorporated into new family courts rules; but, in the longer term, does this case represent a continued widening of the door for outright capital provision for unmarried carer parents — in line with Re P (a child: financial provision)[2003] EWCA Civ 837, [2003] All ER (D) 312 (Jun)-- as against the interests in possession during a child's dependency favoured by earlier cases, eg T v S [1994] 1 FCR 743, [1994] 2 FLR 883; A v A [1995] 2 FCR 353, [1995] 2 FLR 356; J v C (a child: financial provision)[1998] 3 FCR 79, [1999] 1 FLR 152?

Re K (Child)[2016] EWCA Civ 931, [2016] All ER (D) 30 (Oct) was an appeal against an order permitting the mother of a 10 - year - old girl to take her to live in the Republic of Ireland.

Re M (Children)[2016] EWCA Civ 1059, [2016] All ER (D) 58 (Nov) Â was the father's unsuccessful appeal against an order giving the mother permission to relocate to Moscow.

In P (A Child)[2007] EWCA (Civ 1265, [2007] All ER (D) 475 (Nov)-RRB-, a parent's appeal against the refusal to grant leave to oppose an adoption order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, despite the parents having been assessed fit to care for their second child and those of a previous relationship of the father.

In Baxendale - Walker v The Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233Laws J said that unless proceedings were «improperly brought» or «a shambles from start to finish» then a costs order against the SRA should not ordinarily be made.

Re T (A Child)[2017] EWCA Civ 1889 (23 November 2017)-- Family Law Act 1996 Pt 4 non-molestation order is available to local authority for child in care against molestation (threatened attempts to contact child) by mother and her cohabitant.

Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (Rev 2)[2017] EWCA Civ 1916 (28 November 2017)-- Human Rights Act 1998 declaration that Fatal Accidents Act 197 s 1A discriminated against «2 + years» cohabitants.

RBS - v - Highland Financial Partners LP & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 328 — a high profile case relating to a claim brought by RBS for an anti-suit injunction seeking to block fraud claims against the bank in Texas for more than $ 100 million.

In Re A (A Child)[2012] UKSC 60 (heard as Re J (A Child: Disclosure)(Rev 1)[2012] EWCA Civ 1204 in the Court of Appeal in September) the Supreme Court was called upon to balance the interests of justice against, or alongside, the welfare of a child.

In Forcelux Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854, [2009] All ER (D) 216 (Oct) the Court of Appeal held that the hearing of a landlord's possession claim against his tenant in a county court's undefended list was not a trial for CPR 39.3 purposes.

Last week the Court of Appeal, ruling in two conjoined cases on disciplinary proceedings brought against solicitors, Wingate v SRA; SRA v Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366, overturned Mr Justice Mostyn's ruling that integrity and honesty are conceptually the same thing.

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 became a landmark Jackson reforms case after Andrew Mitchell MP's solicitors incurred costs sanctions limiting recoverable costs to the court fees after submitting their budget late in his libel action against the publishers of The Sun newspaper.

The last time this sort of issue came before the Court of Appeal was in Henry v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 19, [2013] 2 All ER 840 where the court granted relief against sanctions under the pre-April regime but warned that it would all be different after 1 April.

Most recently, there was an appeal (successfully resisted with Nathan Pillow QC) by a non-party against an order for committal to prison for 20 months: Otkritie v Olessia Jemai [2016] EWCA Civ 1316.

Motto v Trafigura [2011] EWCA Civ 1150 concerned Leigh, Day & Co's claim for # 100m costs for its group action on behalf of about 30,000 citizens of the Ivory Coast against Trafigura.

In Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776, the Court of Appeal has unanimously determined that an employee can be prevented from knowing the full gist of a case against him on grounds of national security.

In Chilab v King's College [2013] EWCA Civ 147, [2013] All ER (D) 352 (Feb) the Court of Appeal held that an application for security for costs against a non-party could only be made against a third party funder, that is someone who had contributed or agreed to contribute to the claimant's costs in return for a share of any proceeds.

For the moment, Lord Justice Thorpe has given guidance about the treatment of Sch 1 applications against rich daddies — in Morgan v Hill [2006] EWCA Civ 1602, [2006] All ER (D) 386 (Nov).

Orders can be made against courts and the Court of Appeal set out guidance in R (on the Application of Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] EWCA Civ 207, [2004] 3 All ER 543.

Blue Holdings v Unites States of America [2014] EWCA Civ 1291: Appearing for the Appellants in their successful appeal against a worldwide freezing order obtained by the US Government.

In C Plc v P (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)[2007] EWCA Civ 493, [2007] 3 All ER 1034, the Court of Appeal found that where self - incriminating, independent materials had been discovered, following the execution of a search order, and had been handed over to a computer expert by the solicitor supervising the search order, they were not covered by the privilege against self - incrimination.

He has acted in significant recent cases concerning the limits of the jurisdiction, including acting for the successful parties in Yukos Capital v Rosneft [2010] EWHC 784 (Comm)(ambit of the Chabra jurisdiction), Linsen International v Humpuss Sea Transport [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 663 and [2011] EWCA Civ 1042 (limits of the territorial jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against non-resident non-parties) and Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited [2014] 2 CLC 784 (power of court to grant freezing orders against non-parties in aid of arbitral proceedings), as well as Yukos CIS v Wincanton in the BVI Commercial Court and Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (availability of freezing orders in aid of foreign litigation in the absence of an equivalent of s. 25 of the CJJA).

Marc Beaumont has obtained a number of notable victories against the legal regulators in high profile cases such as O'Connor v Bar Standards Board [2012] 17th August, a case that has expanded the direct access functions a Barrister may perform and Okoronkwo v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2008] EWCA Civ 1572.

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev (various judgments including: [2015] EWCA Civ 906, [2015] EWHC 2623 (Ch), [2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch)-RRB- Acting for the liquidator of what was formerly one of Russia's largest privately owned banks on its claims against one of its founders, Sergei Pugachev, under, among other things, the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (with Stephen Smith QC and Ben Griffiths).

In Noel Douglas Conway v The Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 16, the Court of Appeal gave an unusually detailed judgment granting permission to appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court in Conway, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 640, refusing permission for the applicant to judicially review the criminalisation of physician - assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961.

Guy v Pannone LLP [2010] EWCA Civ 1396 an attempt to set aside a statutory demand on the groudns that there was a viable negligence claim against the solicitors.