Search for: "STATE v. VIDAL" Results 201 - 220 of 272
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2016, 4:32 pm by INFORRM
  In Vidal-Hall v Google Inc. ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) the Court of Appeal held that there can be a claim for compensation under the Data Protection Act without pecuniary loss and that misuse of private information is a tort, not an equitable wrong. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 2:23 pm by John Elwood
United States, United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:24 pm by John Elwood
  New Relists Republic of Sudan v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 9:08 am by John Elwood
United States, 17-6540, Orr v. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 8:00 am by Jack Kennedy, Olswang LLP
They were: Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 3 HL 330 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Salomon v A Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 Anisminic… [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 10:52 pm by Sophia Tang
By contrast, courts in California and Canada have found a contractual jurisdiction and applicable law clause invalid as a matter of public policy in order to allow a class action privacy claim to proceed against Facebook.[6] In England, the dual challenge of jurisdiction and collective actions in a mass privacy infringement claim has presented itself before the English Courts, first in Vidal-Hall v Google before the Court of Appeal in 2015[7] and in the Supreme Court judgment of… [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 4:01 pm by INFORRM
The part heard appeal in Vidal-Hall v Google (hearing to resume on 2 March 2015). [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 5:09 pm by INFORRM
On 2 and 3 March 2015, the Court of Appeal (Master of the Rolls, Mcfarlane and Sharp LJJ) will heard the appeal in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google. [read post]
17 Mar 2024, 10:34 am by Dennis Crouch
Vidal, challenging the PTO’s use of ‘discretionary’ denials of inter partes review petitions). [read post]