Search for: "David J. Jones" Results 201 - 220 of 649
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2018, 9:00 pm by Kelsey M. Mackin
Leatherdale, David Hammond, Andria Jones-Bitton, and Shannon E. [read post]
27 May 2018, 4:36 pm by INFORRM
The Pussycat Dolls are bringing a lawsuit against the Daily Mail’s parent company following the Mail Online publishing an article describing the band as a “prostitution ring” by former member Kaya Jones. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 4:31 pm by INFORRM
The high profile privacy and data protection case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC continued before Mann J this week. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 2:40 pm
I am happy to report the publication of my article,  "The Corporate Social Responsibilities of Financial Institutions for the Conduct of their Borrowers: The View From International Law and Standards," Lewis & CLark Law Review 21(4):881-920 (2018). [read post]
18 Mar 2018, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
 The trial in NT2 v Google LLC took place before Warby J on 12 and 14 March 2018. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 6:14 am
., on Friday, February 16, 2018 Tags: Board composition, Board oversight, Boards of Directors, Corporate culture, Corporate Social Responsibility, Diversity, Executive Compensation, Incentives, Management, Misconduct, Risk management Perpetual Dual-Class Stock: The Case Against Corporate Royalty Posted by Robert J. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 6:31 am
Posted by David Woodcock, Joan McKown, and Henry Klehm, Jones Day, on Monday, February 19, 2018 Editor's Note: David Woodcock, Joan E. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Sir David Eady stayed the action in England & Wales on the basis that Scotland is the more appropriate forum. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
When historians look back at the copyright worlf in 2017 (if our attention spans allow us to have roles such as a 'historian' in the future!) [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
 Canada In the case of R v Jones 2017 SCC 60, the Supreme Court held that text messages may attract a reasonable expectation of privacy even after they have been sent and received. [read post]