Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE" Results 2841 - 2860 of 7,358
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Apr 2007, 3:31 pm
Au contraire - at issue in Zuni Public School District v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 6:48 am by Thomas G. Heintzman
 That is the issue which the UK Court of Appeal addressed in AES-Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 6:19 am by Tom Heintzman
 That is the issue which the UK Court of Appeal addressed in AES-Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 7:41 pm
  As an object, of course, it is meant to serve as a metaphor for the state, the enterprise of government and the role and talent of the CPC in building this massive object//Work Report, Party, State, Society, Global leader. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 6:30 am
I read this passage as suggesting that the much-maligned “economic/non-economic” distinction in United States v. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 5:21 am
From a page called "Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life, we learn: John McCain believes Roe v. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 10:02 am
No problem, here is the 124th edition of Never Too Early For Christmas References Never Too Late.Festive Feline Level 100Rocket in the Patents Court: Napp Pharmaceutical v Dr Reddy's and SandozThe case of Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited v (1) Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited (2) Sandoz Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1053 was previously reported on the IPKat here (first instance) and here (interim application). [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 10:21 am by Neil Wilkof
The three-part test for breach of confidence set out in the English case of "Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd" [1969] RPC 41 is well known to common-law practitioners. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 9:00 am
 The English Court of Chancery in Amicable Soc'y v. [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 4:45 am by Neil Wilkof
The court’s reasoning began with the well-known tripartite test for breach of confidence found in the English case of Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41, namely (as paraphrased by the court in LVM) that:(a) “the information must possess the quality of confidentiality;(b) the information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and (c) there must have been some unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of… [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 12:41 pm
Stanford student JP Schnapper-Casteras discusses oral argument in Boyle v. [read post]