Search for: "Hoffmann v. Hoffmann"
Results 181 - 200
of 463
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2013, 7:39 am
It is also worth noting that the majority noted for the first time since its 1989 Hoffmann-LaRoche v. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 7:39 am
It is also worth noting that the majority noted for the first time since its 1989 Hoffmann-LaRoche v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 12:32 pm
However, the case is certain to prove to be a key FLSA precedent, the first since the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in Hoffmann-LaRoche v. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm
Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., 2013 WL 1191899 (E.D.N.C. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 5:06 pm
Exemplary damages for libel were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hill v Church of Scientology ([1995] 2 SCR 1130). [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 2:02 pm
Lord Hoffmann: notso easy to replace ... [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 11:03 pm
In true anecdotal style, the author explains the relevance of Section 115 of the Indian statute (appointment of scientific advisors) by pointing out the open expression of gratitude by Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 6:01 am
Hoffmann-La Roche Holding AG engaged in biotechnology research. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 4:03 pm
However, in Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44 he was described by Lord Hoffmann as being “hostile to the spirit of Reynolds” and his finding in favour of the Saudi Arabian businessman was reversed, the House of Lords finding that qualified privilege did apply. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:37 am
In a February 13, 2013 decision. the Second Department in Braun v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 8:57 pm
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. et al. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 12:29 pm
An appellate court should, as Lord Hoffmann explained in Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1, be very cautious in differing from a judge's evaluation unless it can be shown that the judge erred in principle or reached a perverse conclusion. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 1:23 pm
George v. [read post]
25 Nov 2012, 1:00 pm
The notice requirement, itself, had been confirmed in Frits Loendersloot v George Ballantine & Sons Ltd [1977] ECR I-227. [read post]
25 Nov 2012, 7:01 am
Thomas Koch of Hoffmann Eitle, noted. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 12:09 pm
and Lord Hoffmann, commenting on the decision in Bieber, observed that Article 3 was prescribing the minimum standard, not a norm. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 3:48 am
Hoffmann-La Roche et al v. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 3:48 am
Hoffmann-La Roche et al v. [read post]
5 Nov 2012, 2:53 am
Lord Hoffmann once said, with reference to interpretation of contracts, that the “fundamental change which has overtaken this branch of the law” as a result of Lord Wilberforce’s speech in Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381 was not always “sufficiently appreciated”. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 6:41 am
” It was also used by Justice Scalia in Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. [read post]
