Search for: "Sharp v. Sharp" Results 3221 - 3240 of 4,115
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Dec 2010, 3:58 am
Assumption of risk in a work-related activityRios v Town of Colonie, 256 AD2d 900Public safety agencies often sponsor athletic events or authorize members to participate in them. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 4:33 pm by INFORRM
Bowker v Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, heard 21 October 2010 (Sharp J). [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 3:56 am
The Kat wonders whether the judge's analysis in this short, sharp preliminary matter will serve to determine the outcome of the dispute. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 12:24 pm by William Birdthistle
  Two years ago, the Court launched a thousand law review articles on this topic with its decision in Stoneridge v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 7:32 am by Steve Hall
That year, he famously wrote in dissent in Callins v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 6:05 am
Our Atlanta area truck accident attorneys are keenly aware that cases involving large trucks and buses are much more complicated than those involving automobile collisions. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 4:51 pm by INFORRM
In Daniels v BBC ([2010] EWHC 3057 (QB)) Sharp J struck out a libel claim, inter alia, on the grounds that the allegations had not reached a sufficient threshold of seriousness. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 4:24 pm by INFORRM
On Wednesday 24 November, Mrs Justice Sharp handed down judgment in KJH v HGF [2010] EWHC 3064 (QB). [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 3:39 am by INFORRM
At approximately the same time yesterday judgment was handed down by Mrs Justice  Sharp  in a blackmail privacy action which  was anonymised; KJH v HGF [2010] EWHC 3064 (QB.) [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 6:51 pm by Darren O'Donovan
Events in Eastern Europe have yielded some sharp practice relating to the interaction of IMF requested austerity measures and national Constitutional Courts. [read post]
21 Nov 2010, 4:38 pm by INFORRM
Bowker v Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, heard 21 October 2010 (Sharp J). [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 2:01 am by INFORRM
Sharp J held that the article was not defamatory – it was “unremarkable” and no-one would have thought less of the claimant. [read post]