Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3141 - 3160
of 4,051
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2011, 5:50 pm
Hutcheson (formerly known as “KGM”) v News Group Newspapers, heard 24 May 2011 (Master of the Rolls, Etherton and Gross LJJ) Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd, heard 26 May 2011 (Sharp J) Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley & ors, heard 7-8 June 2011 (Eady J) Cook v Telegraph Media Ltd, heard 9 June 2011 (Tugendhat J) [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 4:35 am
As Laing J observed in Merlin v Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB): “There is no express indication in the PHA that Parliament intended the provisions of the PHA to abrogate the rights conferred by Article 10, or to change the law of defamation, which is, by necessary implication, involved in any consideration of the scope of the legitimate restrictions which may be placed by a contracting state on the rights conferred by Article 10. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 1:37 am
In the courts A.A. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2010, 5:28 pm
Hurd v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 9:25 am
It's a 74 page note by Anne Gilson LaLonde on the protection in the United States of foreign trade marks that are well known in the US but aren't actually being used there. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 11:21 pm
In Dwares v. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 7:10 pm
Du Cros Ltd. (1913) AC 624 at 634, 635) Lord Parker of Waddington having remarked upon the difficulty of finding the right criterion by which to determine whether a proposed mark is or is not "adapted to distinguish" the applicant's goods defined the crucial question practically as I have stated it, and added two sentences which have often been quoted but to which it is well to return for an understanding of the problem in a case such as the present. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 11:56 pm
: on Mrs K Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] EAT 89. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 5:25 am
Coty argued it needed a Norwich order (this type of order, also known as an equitable bill of discovery, originates from a judgment of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1973] 2 All ER 943) to learn the identity of the Costco suppliers because the suppliers had breached their contractual obligations that prevented the resale of Coty products, so that Coty could institute legal proceedings against them. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 5:25 am
Coty argued it needed a Norwich order (this type of order, also known as an equitable bill of discovery, originates from a judgment of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1973] 2 All ER 943) to learn the identity of the Costco suppliers because the suppliers had breached their contractual obligations that prevented the resale of Coty products, so that Coty could institute legal proceedings against them. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 8:10 am
When considering whether The Suicide Act 1961 s 2 was incompatible with ECHR, art 8 it was held that the court was bound by the House of Lords’ decision in Purdy. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 11:21 pm
Certainly—and as I acknowledge in the book—there are places and times in which international human rights law itself has wavered since 9/11 including in the A v United Kingdom decision of the ECtHR—but by and large it has demonstrated more resilience than one might have expected. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 11:10 am
Certainly—and as I acknowledge in the book—there are places and times in which international human rights law itself has wavered since 9/11 including in the A v United Kingdom decision of the ECtHR—but by and large it has demonstrated more resilience than one might have expected. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 6:13 pm
In 1996, she wrote the decision in United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 9:50 am
“[V]ery serious violent offences” can outweigh an Art 8 claim “even if they were committed by a minor”. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
See, e.g., Lochner v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 9:20 am
AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 710 (21 June 2011) ?? [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:00 am
A predecessor to section 41(3) was upheld by the High Court on the grounds that the Oireachtas was entitled to conclude that significant resources would unfairly distort the political marketplace in favour of larger parties, well-established interest groups and major candidates with deep pockets, and against the interests of smaller parties or interest groups and minor candidates lacking in similar resources (Colgan v IRTC [2000] 2 IR 490, [1999] 1 ILRM 22, [1998] IEHC 117 (20 July 1998)),… [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 12:24 pm
One need not even mention Bush v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 6:01 am
Lord Tomlin firmly and unequivocally rejected the very approach that, it will be seen, has won favour with the Supreme Court. [read post]
