GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
15:04 Mar 28, 2003 |
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: María Eugenia Wachtendorff Chile Local time: 21:32 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 +4 | injunction against further moves |
| ||
3 +1 | non-renewal order |
| ||
1 +1 | non-innovate order |
|
non-innovate order Explanation: :) |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
non-renewal order Explanation: ya |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
injunction against further moves Explanation: Ref.: Glosario M. Orellana -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-03-28 16:48:32 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I\'m Chilean, and I\'m absolutely certain about this. The judges bars all parties from doing anything further regarding the case (while investigation is underway). -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-03-28 16:54:52 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Sorry about the typo - \"judge\" (not \"judges\"). Anyway, in this case, it was the Court of Appeals that issued the injunction. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-03-28 18:35:26 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Last minute report from \"my\" lawyer: For further clarification, in the present case, the Court of Appeals may have granted this TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER PROCESS -as Jane so nicely puts it- at the request of the defendant\'s attorneys, while the latter obtain additional evidence in favor of their client. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||