Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE" Results 3141 - 3160 of 7,366
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2016, 6:08 am
Defendant provides an English translation for 37 seconds of questioning. [read post]
17 May 2016, 3:34 pm
In 2007, Mr Justice Pumfrey tried to do away with disclosure on obviousness in Nichia v Argos. [read post]
17 May 2016, 4:28 am
 According to the French IP code, M&S was not entitled to demand the cancellation of those goods and services not cited against it by ISMS, and therefore the claims for cancellation should be accepted as far as they apply to those goods and services cited in the infringement claim but rejected for those not so cited.On the validity of CTM 5410998 SIMPLYRecognizing the need to consider the validity of the marks by reference to the average consumer in all EU member states, the court… [read post]
17 May 2016, 2:45 am by INFORRM
It is perhaps surprising to see a UKIP MEP seeking to rely on European Law to stay an English libel action. [read post]
16 May 2016, 11:35 am by Mark Walsh
(Justice White went on to get his majority in the case, Babbitt v. [read post]
14 May 2016, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
On this day in history, Lord Mansfield of the King’s Bench in England issued a ruling in the case of Somerset v. [read post]
13 May 2016, 4:27 pm by INFORRM
The court stated that, on the facts outlined above, the “basic elements of a good, strong harassment claim [in English law] are present“. [read post]
12 May 2016, 12:25 pm by The Federalist Society
Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai citizen who came to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics, asked friends and family in Thailand to buy the English-language versions of his textbooks in Thailand, where they were cheaper and mail them to him. [read post]
12 May 2016, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
He stated that the question to be answered was whether CPA Order 17, which was no doubt procedurally binding in Iraq, operated as an impediment rendering it impossible for the plaintiff to claim his right, under art 435, where the English courts were concerned. [read post]
10 May 2016, 7:56 am by Sally-Ann Underhill
He stated that “In a case like the present, the parties have made their own law by contracting, and can in principle un-make or re-make it”. [read post]