Search for: "HOPE v. WALKER" Results 221 - 240 of 427
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jan 2012, 10:20 pm
In our post on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, we expressed the hope that the Supreme Court would take a different view. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 9:47 am by Candace Cathey
handle=hein.journals/usflr29&collection=journals&id=661 "Martin Luther King, Walker v. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 4:08 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix Chambers
These appeals from the Court of Appeal (Civ) will be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Brown, Mance and Kerr. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 10:14 am
For instance, in Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc v Sid Shaw, Mr Presley's estate sought to register trade marks for ELVIS, ELVIS PRESLEY and a signature stylised mark in Class 3 for various toiletry and cosmetic products. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 1:48 am by Laura Sandwell
Hilary Term begins in the Privy Council on Thursday 12 January 2012 with the one day hearing in front of Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Brown, Kerr and Wilson of Rukhmin Balgobin v South West Regional Health Authority, which is on appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 7:56 pm
Begging the question, does the next age in software protection belong to copyright (see Apple v Psystar, Oracle v Google)? [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 3:15 am by Laura Sandwell
Starting on Wednesday in Courtroom 2 of the Supreme Court is the two day hearing of In the matter of Peacock, which will be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Walker, Brown and Wilson. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 2:45 am by Laura Sandwell
Starting on Wednesday in Courtroom 2 of the Supreme Court is the two day hearing of In the matter of Peacock, which will be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Walker, Brown and Wilson. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 2:07 am by Laura Sandwell
On Tuesday 6 December 2011 the Privy Council will hear David Gopaul on behalf of HV Holdings Ltd v Vitra Imam Baksh on behalf of the Incorporated Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago, which will be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Walker, Brown and Wilson. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 7:08 am by Claire Darwin, Matrix.
Let’s just hope that by the time all the legal wrangling is over, there is still something left in the judicial pension pot! [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 4:10 am by Laura Sandwell
On Tuesday 22 November is the appeal from the Court of Session (Scotland) of Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd, which will be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Hope, Brown, Mance and Kerr. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 2:14 am by Laura Sandwell
Starting today in the Supreme Court is the appeal of Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors, which will be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Phillips, Walker, Brown, Mance, Kerr and Wilson over three and a half days. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am by NL
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 32What happens to a lease for an uncertain term? [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am by NL
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 32What happens to a lease for an uncertain term? [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:44 pm by Dave
 Baroness Hale/Lord Walker are quite amusing about the foundational case, Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 noting that “their Lordships speeches were singularly unresponsive to each other” (at [28]), but then the hard work begins. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 9:39 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix
Starting on Monday 7 November is Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust, which is scheduled for 2-3 days to be heard by Lady Hale and Lords Walker, Brown, Mance and Dyson. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 8:46 pm by Dennis Crouch
 The UKSC normally sits in five-member panels — here the panel consisted of Lords Hope, Walker, Neuberger, Clarke, and Collins. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 12:57 pm
 The main judgments were given by Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope, which whom the others agreed. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 4:53 am
The leading judgments are given by Lord Neuberger [paragraphs 1 to 140] and Lord Hope [paragraphs 141-166], with whom the other justices agreed. [read post]