Search for: "Owings v. Respondent"
Results 221 - 240
of 2,298
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2021, 3:30 am
The Supreme Court has since clarified the law in this area, including by reference to the CA’s decision in this case, in Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents) [2019] UKSC 20. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 8:40 am
In the recent case (Laktin v. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 1:59 pm
Because that holding conflicts with the established rule, and because respondents’ actions for fraud and conspiracy are also barred by limitations, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the trial court’s summary judgment for respondents. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
Ediger’s informed consent) and the resulting injuries to the respondent. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 9:48 am
Co. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 5:00 am
In SEC v. [read post]
14 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
(U.S. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 2:57 pm
The appeals court answered no, reversing a lower court's decision to the contrary.Vance v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 11:27 am
A ruling in a recent case, Fischer v. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 10:26 am
Byrne and Bowie v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 9:03 pm
” Martorana v. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 7:56 am
Facebook argued that it did not owe its users a special duty of care (cf. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 8:25 am
"Read the decision at: Maras v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 5:37 pm
Recent Case In MI Management v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 5:33 am
The government responded by filing a motion for summary judgment. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 3:18 am
This appeal considered whether the appellants have suffered actionable damage in the form of losses flowing from the physiological changes to their bodies called by the respondent’s negligence, and if not, whether the respondent is liable for the losses by reason of a breach of an implied term in the employment contract to keep the appellants safe at work, and/or whether the respondents owed a duty of care to hold the appellants harmless from the purely… [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 10:55 am
In Haidak v. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 10:16 am
Inc., v. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 10:16 am
Inc., v. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 1:46 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
