Some cases claim to show how well-known banks protected their profits by deceiving investors.

Claiming benefits is ridiculous, certainly NOT the case.

The case has also claimed victims among the leadership of both the left- and right-wing opposition.

The case claimed that the Queen was due compensation for the taking of the crown lands of the kingdom.

Arghezi claimed that such influence and moral support were also "decisive" in at least one other case, that of Luchian.

But such cases were not, as the council claimed, the result of slack administration by the chief steward.

None of this is sufficient for the case claimed.

The case claimed that Gallagher and Shean's act was "unique and irreplaceable".

Rush's case claimed that such information should only be released by the Attorney-General.

The case centered around the publisher setting additional terms not specifically stated in the statute and claiming that the work was licensed and not sold.