Search for: "State v. Masters"
Results 2541 - 2560
of 3,927
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2012, 2:30 am
. “This article is inaccurate and misrepresents the facts” the corporation stated, as reported by Tabloid Watch here. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 12:03 pm
Whitney V. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 7:15 am
In last week’s case (Bako v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 7:42 am
However, in State Farm Lloyds v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 3:41 am
The defendant in State v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 12:25 pm
Wachovia Bank, Wachovia Capital Markets LLC v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 7:24 am
Corp. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:30 am
On Tuesday 7 February 2012 the Court of Appeal (Master of the Rolls, Hooper and Toulson LJJ) heard the appeal in R (Gu [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 8:00 am
Coauthor, Brown v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 10:39 am
It all comes down to the Decision [2012] EWCA Civ 48 of the Court of Appeal, and the IPKat can do no better than defer to the Master of the Rolls (MR) giving the leading judgement in explaining the background (in this post, italics refer to direct quotations from the Decision): 1. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 12:22 pm
In Morey v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 3:25 am
al : LexisNexis, 2011 1 v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am
Mr Gervase Duffield v The Independent, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Ms Hayley Quinn v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mr Alex Scott v The Times, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mr Alex Scott and Mr James Elliott v The Sun, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mrs Jane Clarke v Northwich Guardian, Clause 5, 01/02/2012; Mr Peter Vince-Lindsay v Daily Mail, Clause 1 01/02/2012. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 9:15 am
Scout Masters have a great deal of independence in how they run their troops. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 3:30 am
Claflin v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:50 pm
[It] discusses TechSearch, L.L.C. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:41 am
Coogan and Philips v News Group Newspapers [2012] EWCA Civ 48 -read judgment The Court of Appeal today dismissed Mr Glenn Mulcaire’s appeal against an order that he provide information to claimants in the phone hacking litigation. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 7:09 am
In resolving the dispute Master Bouck provided the following reasons summarizing the legal disclosure obligations (and dispute process) under Rule 7-1: [39] Biehl v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 6:18 am
In relation to the first issue, he began by noting that the only basis upon which it could be said that the information intercepted from the claimants’ phones constituted ‘intellectual property’ as defined in section 72(5) was if it was ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’. [22] Lord Neuberger rejected the argument put forward by the Secretary of State (as an interested party) that “commercial information” should be… [read post]
