A resourceful British government agent seeks
answers in a case involving the disappearance of a colleague and the disruption of the American space program.
Read his brother Mike's statement here, where he describes the devastating impact that federal preemption can have preventing litigants from
getting answers in cases like this.
However, acknowledging the constitutionality of the individual mandate portends no such impending doom... we are not persuaded that the formalistic dichotomy of activity and inactivity provides a workable or persuasive
enough answer in this case.
One of the questions the Advocate
General answers in this case is whether the conduct of Mr. Donner leads to «distribution to the public», that is the German public, within the meaning of the Copyright Directive.
(I might suggest that if Google ever learns to recognize a legal question, it provide the
same answer in every case — and they can use me as the authority — «It depends».)
There is no
firm answer in all cases, but if the policy has been in place longer than two years, the policy should pay, but shorter term policies are not clear on this issue and depend on the company
Whether the dismissed employee can continue to work for his employer, in an attempt to his mitigate damages, and sue at the same time was
answered in the case of Russo v. Kerr, 2010 ONSC 6053.
Jacqueline A. Scott & Associates is a law firm that obtains compensation, justice and
answers in cases involving medical negligence.
The answer in both cases is «not much.»
The answer in this case is clear, large corporations benefit, especially the oil companies.
Adoption was
the answer in both cases.
And we could say still further: A style of judging that insists on focusing, in a demanding way, on whether the law is justified fits more aptly the true character of law, whether the judges get
the answer in the case right or wrong.
I tend to find
myself answering no in all cases with these questions.
The answer in both cases are HELL NO.
The little one will
answer in case he or she hears your voice.
The answer in this case is a resounding no; this is because of the campaign's dangerous appeal for military intervention.
The answer in all cases is geometry.
I hope that this question is not too physics related for this Q&A site because I think that electrical circuits may form part of
the answer in this case.
@Bob That's a very interesting question, I'm not sure of
the answer in these cases and booksellers should certainly check before signing up.
Also, it's good to wait a couple of days before accepting
an answer in case other people have better answers or provide feedback on my answer (as you just did).
A: I'm afraid there is no one - size - fits -
all answer in your case, Sydney, but I'll try to provide some issue identification and discuss some potential solutions for you.
If you have ever wondered what distance people are willing to go to help save homeless dogs,
the answer in this case is about 690 miles.
The answer in her case was to find a place that was sheltered on three sides, had little foot or road traffic and to give her plenty of time to get comfortable with the spot.
Thought we would post
the answer in case it was useful to anyone else.
On the other hand, you might want to keep this security question and
answer in case you need to reset your password.
The answer in the case of Tiny Wings is don't fix what isn't broken, and instead expand upon the mechanics of the first game in a way that's unobtrusive to what made it a hit in the first place while simultaneously changing enough to make the whole experience feel fresh.
Sorry, but
the answer in this case is No.
Asking an academic if CAGW is real is like asking a Catholic if God is real —
the answer in each case is both predictable and equally grounded in empirical evidence.
The answer in the case of criminal charges in the federal system and in the vast majority of U.S. states is that you can almost never recover legal fees you incur defending a criminal action.
Maybe you are unsure whether bankruptcy is the right
answer in your case — talk to a bankruptcy attorney anyway!
However, I suspect that some of us, already know
the answer in some cases: you can't be critized for what you haven't said wrong.
The answer in this case was some, but not many.