Search for: "Dow v. Jones"
Results 201 - 220
of 343
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm
It may have been that Ms Ehrenfeld had a potential defences to the claim – she could have set up a Reynolds defence of responsible journalism, or that she could have argued that it should be struck out as an abuse of process on Jameel grounds (Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946). [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Ark. 2010); Kohl v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
Problem areas include what “unaware” means, the exclusion of electronic communications such as emails and the very broad common law definition of “publication” which has not changed since Duke of Brunswick v Hamer (1849) 14 QB 185. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:41 am
The ABA Journal, the Birmingham Business Journal, Dow Jones Newswires (via the Wall Street Journal), Courthouse News Service, and JURIST all have reports on the decision. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
Dow Jones [2005] QB 946). [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 6:15 am
Far from being revolutionary, Dow Jones v Gutnick has proven to be a straightforward application of common law principles to an entirely expected outcome. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:19 am
The recent decision of the Mr Justice Christopher Clarke in Wallis v Meredith ([2011] EWHC 75 (QB)) resulted in the Claimant’s case being struck out on the basis that there had been no real or substantial tort following Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc ([2005] QB 946). [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
” Jones v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Dow. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
Picture yourself looking at the Wall Street Journal to what price your investment in the Jones v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:08 am
This came after the same respondent had argued in two earlier cases, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones LP v. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 8:05 am
"This is completely unique," says David Dow, a University of Houston law professor who also works with the Texas Defender Service. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 3:51 am
Factiva.com: This is a news database operated by Dow Jones which is now part of News Corps. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 11:06 am
Cyber Booth, AIR 2000 Bombay 27 and the High Court of Australia in Dow Jones & Co. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 4:51 pm
Academic David Rolph, University of Sydney Faculty of Law, has published “Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet after Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick” ([2010] 33 University of New South Wales Law Journal 562). [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 8:17 am
David Rolph, University of Sydney Faculty of Law, has published Publication, Innocent Dissemination and the Internet after Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick at 33 University of New South Wales Law Journal 562 (2010). [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 5:22 pm
Modi initially sought to set aside these orders and stay the proceedings on the grounds that India was the most convenient forum ( forum non conveniens challenge) and that in respect of the offending Tweet, that the claim was an abuse of process since no substantial tort had been committed within this jurisdiction, following the decision in Jameel (Youssef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc. [2005] QB 946. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 4:32 pm
There is already jurisdiction, deriving from the case of Jameel v Dow Jones ([2005] QB 946) to strike out a case as an abuse of the process if the publication does not amount to a “real and substantial tort”. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 5:16 pm
The defendants’ grounds for the application to strike out were as follows: That the claim and its real purpose was to circumvent the rule in Derbyshire v Times Newspapers Limited [1993] AC 534 (“Derbyshire”)] which prevents the Governing Body of Durand School, as a governmental body, from suing for libel; That its effect was circumvent the rule which prevents the Governing Body of Durand School, as a public authority and hence a body without Article 8 ECHR rights, from… [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:12 am
The defendants’ grounds for the application to strike out were as follows: That the claim and its real purpose was to circumvent the rule in Derbyshire v Times Newspapers Limited [1993] AC 534 (“Derbyshire”)] which prevents the Governing Body of Durand School, as a governmental body, from suing for libel; That its effect was circumvent the rule which prevents the Governing Body of Durand School, as a public authority and hence a body without Article 8 ECHR rights, from… [read post]
