In that case, let's go.

And that is the case in flies.

In my country, that was the case in 1974.

In that case, the consequences are rather severe.

In that case, I would be completely lost.

In that case, I would be completely lost.

What, in that case, are we to do?

In that case, I think you should come in today.

In that case I would surely be in clear error.

In that case I would surely be in clear error.

Surely in that case I should be in manifest error.

Surely in that case I should be in manifest error.

In that case I should indeed be in manifest error.

In that case I should indeed be in manifest error.

In the present case, that ruling came in a slightly later case, but it tended to confirm that resort to this remedy would have been futile.

That was not the case in the present dispute.

However, that is not the case in formal processes.

In that case, the momentum should not be lost.

But in this case, that approach will not work.

It underlines that in that case, the private complainant desisted from further pursuing the case and did not testify before the trial court.

Surely in that case I should indeed be in evident error.

Surely in that case I should indeed be in evident error.

In that case I shall most surely be in clear error

In that case I shall most surely be in clear error

The Mrksić et al. case, which commenced in October this year, is the first case to follow that Practice Direction.

Services, in the case of the United Kingdom, weigh in at 79 per cent in the case of Uganda, that figure is 13 per cent.

In this case it's about 25 percent, based on that.

That was not the case in the dispute at hand.

And this isn't just Tom Friedman, it's actually provable in case after case after case.

But in Chandler's case, that was the beginning of the story.

But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago.

But in Chandler's case, that was the beginning of the story.

In that case we should start by having a family meeting.

That makes it the fastest prosecution case in the Tribunal's history.

In that case any items and assets found can be seized.

And a clear case of that, was something that happened in London in the year 2000.

The Committee's decision in that case, given that the complainant had not been expelled, took into account the evidence made available to it up to the time the decision in that case was adopted.

However, the medical certificates obtained in the Turkish case had been issued by Uzbek military doctors working in the prisons where the applicants in that case were detained.

But it turns out that in 1918 that was not the case at all.

The State party submits that there is no basis to distinguish the present case from the Committee's earlier decision in the Danish case.

He also distinguishes the current case from that of Rogerson v. Australia, case No. 802 1998 and Collins v. Jamaica, case No.

Why is that the case?

That was an interesting case.

That case involves Prefect Karera.

But is that the case?