Search for: "Strange v. Strange" Results 2901 - 2920 of 3,726
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2018, 3:31 pm by Lyle Denniston
Another precedent that some of his critics said might be vulnerable is United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2006, 12:19 pm by Philip Mann
(Oh, I know, you just apply the clear guidance of Phillips v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 8:26 am by Joy Waltemath
“It sounds strange that the Court, about 16 years ago, rejected the ‘catalyst theory’ for plaintiffs and now accepts it–or something like it—for defendants. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 1:46 pm by Chad Flanders
  One needs only to read the Supreme Court’s description of prison conditions in Brown v. [read post]
22 Oct 2016, 3:26 am
Copinger (17th ed), [22-18], p 1626, n 94 cites the Hong Kong case of Hksar v Chan Nai Mang (2005), in which it was held that the meaning of “affect prejudicially” was wide in scope and not necessarily restricted to economic prejudice, although that was the obvious area at which the section was directed. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:38 pm
This would appear to be a strange result (and goes against eg Case T-152/07 Lange Uren v OHIM). [read post]
5 Jun 2016, 11:05 pm
 A similar story was recently told before Mrs Justice Slade in the Queens Bench Division in Arthur J Gallagher Services and others v Skriptchenko and Others [2016] EWHC 603. [read post]