Search for: "FERGUSON V. FERGUSON" Results 241 - 260 of 1,597
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jan 2021, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Surveillance Reuters had a piece “HK security chief says communications surveillance can come under security law” Newspapers Journalism and Regulation IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 27974-20 Garrity v Scotsman.com, 1 Accuracy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation. 12131-20 Emmett v Daily Mirror, 2 Privacy (2019), 6 Children (2019, No breach – after investigation. 11860-20 Bunglawala v… [read post]
14 Jan 2021, 5:13 pm
I concur in the majority opinion receding from Shop in the Grove, Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 2:56 am by INFORRM
Tinkler v Ferguson, heard 16 December 2020 (McCombe, Peter Jackson and Dingemans LJJ). [read post]
24 Dec 2020, 11:05 am by Josh Blackman
Supreme Court, from 1894 until his death, saw him vote in the majority in Plessy v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 10:00 pm by Chijioke Okorie
Also in November, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa handed down judgment in Beyond Platinum (Pty) Ltd v Ellies Electronics (Pty) Ltd [2020]. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Tinkler v Ferguson, heard 16 December 2020 (McCombe, Peter Jackson and Dingemans LJJ). [read post]
17 Dec 2020, 11:00 pm by Chijioke Okorie
The series is the result of collaboration between myself and several IP practitioners and researchers across Africa (in alphabetical order): Caroline Wanjiru (Centre for IP and IT Law, Strathmore University, Kenya); Chinasa Uwanna and Ekene Chuks-Okeke (Banwo & Ighodalo, Nigeria); Marius Schneider and Nora Ho Tu Nam (IPvocate Africa, Mauritius); Vanessa Ferguson (Ferguson Attorneys, South Africa). [read post]
17 Dec 2020, 3:04 am by Chijioke Okorie
In September, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal judgement in Milestone Beverage CC and Others v The Scotch Whisky Association and Other was handed down electronically. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 4:29 am by Jon L. Gelman
Given that such schemes dictate what the only party that can be charged must pay to air carriers, the Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that comparable state laws constitute impermissible rate regulation preempted by the ADA, but a divided Texas Supreme Court upheld the Texas system at issue here.The questions presented are:Whether the ADA preempts a state workers’ compensation system that limits the prices an air-ambulance company can charge and collect for its air-transport… [read post]