Search for: "DUKES v. PAGE" Results 281 - 300 of 426
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2021, 4:54 pm by INFORRM
India The Bar and Bench blog has a post about a case in which the Madras High Court quashed a criminal defamation case against a person who published a cartoon on his Facebook page. [read post]
10 May 2015, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
In other news, the media has been warned by Norfolk police not to harass the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as they return home with their newborn daughter Princess Charlotte. [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 6:44 am by INFORRM
Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers [2023] EWHC 3120 (KB). [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 4:00 am by Susannah Tredwell
”, online: (2005) Duke L & Tech Rev 14 at para 5 <www.law. duke.edu/journals/dltr/>. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 3:41 pm by Katie Smith, ACLU
The stories of women involved in the case, Dukes v. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 2:51 pm by J. Michael Goodson Law Library
(Although the news reports do not give more detailed case information, savvy legal researchers should be able to use the court’s quoted language to easily track down U.S. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:31 am by Jack Sharman
  In particular: In a 10-page report titled “Rigged Justice: 2016,” the U.S. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm by INFORRM
It was assumed in the claimant’s favour that the defendant was responsible for statements made by third parties on Facebook under s.5 Defamation Act 2013 as the operator/administrator of the Facebook page in question, despite the lack of authority relating to Facebook administrators and whether they fall within s.5 [167]. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:02 am by INFORRM
The Sun, the publisher that broke the story, said in a statement on 12 July 2023 that at no point in its original front-page story did it allege criminality had occurred. [read post]
3 Oct 2021, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
CNN has already disabled its Facebook page in Australia as a result of the ruling. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:20 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
The record contained an 8 page fax, and it was unclear whether the ALJ had not received the fax, or had received it but considered in not responsive to the order to show cause. [read post]