Search for: "Edwards v. Means" Results 221 - 240 of 1,963
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2022, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
Data Privacy and Data Protection John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, has opened an investigation into concerns that the Ministry of Justice itself was unlawfully processing barristers’ personal data. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Roger Parloff
Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards—who sustained serious injuries in the siege and will likely be among the prosecution witnesses at the Proud Boys trial. [read post]
 This line of reasoning is reminiscent of Occlutech v AGA Medical [2010] EWCA Civ 702 where a claim referred to “clamps” and this was held to exclude other means of holding components together referred to in the specification. [read post]
6 Aug 2022, 11:55 pm by Frank Cranmer
Therefore, the proceedings in the ET were a nullity (the ET following the High Court decision in HM Attorney General v Edwards [2015] EWHC 1653 Admin). [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 10:35 am by Guest Author
Army of the indigenous tribes in the trans-Mississippi West, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the labor injunction, Plessy v. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 5:01 am by Irina Manta, Cassandra Burke Robertson
” But what does it mean to be born “in the United States”? [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 8:20 am by Brian Cordery (Bristows)
” In response Manitou emphasised a point made in Brugger v Medicaid Ltd [1996] RPC 635: the failure of those in the art to carry out an alleged invention for a long period after it became technically possible to do so does not necessarily mean that the invention cannot have been obvious throughout that period. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 6:30 am by Mark Graber
  Individual rights had to be justified as means for pursuing the common good. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 5:00 am by jonathanturley
The court, for example, unanimously struck down a California law in Edward v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 2:05 pm by INFORRM
There being two legitimate aims, the next question was whether the restriction was proportionate to them; the means chosen to achieve those aim must (a) be rationally connected to the objective and not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations, (b) impair the right as little as possible, and (c) be such that their effects on rights are proportional to the objective … (Murphy v IRTC [46] (Barrington J), following Heaney v… [read post]