Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 3421 - 3440
of 7,358
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2015, 2:17 pm
Today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments in ClearCorrect v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:10 am
The judgment (DiCaprio v Oops!) [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 7:16 am
In ProBuild v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 1:00 am
” The question for the court was the extent of the connection required between a foreign company and the UK to entitle an English court to wind it up, if its centre of main interests was in another member state of the European Union. [read post]
9 Aug 2015, 4:01 pm
Without that, it is hard to see how Arnold J can still apply the reliance test favoured by the English courts. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 4:10 am
Moroccanoil … but no fishy oil forfeit The Moroccanoil case (Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd[2014] EWHC 1686 (IPEC)), by contrast, shows the weaknesses of English law when a brand owner doesn’t plan ahead and finds itself without any registered trade marks to rely upon. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 7:51 pm
United States, got in the way too. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 9:11 am
B&B v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 5:09 am
The parties accepted this construction and Lord Carnwath observed at para 20 that the French and Spanish versions are equally authentic to the English text. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 4:00 am
Guindon v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 7:25 pm
Further, the Supreme Court stated that “[g]overnmental or private policies are not contrary to the disparate-impact requirement unless they are artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 12:21 pm
United States: In plain English and with plain logic, Justice Jackson explains why Korematsu's encampment was unconstitutional and dangerous.4. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 7:44 am
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 2:16 am
In addition, the contract also stated that all proceedings were to be brought in England. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 5:10 pm
” Judge Rakoff also rejected the argument that the allegedly misleading statements about the company’s business and management were mere “opinion” or “puffery,” stating that “where (as here alleged) the statements were made repeatedly in an effort to reassure the investing public about the Company’s integrity, a reasonable investor could rely on them as reflective of the true state of affairs at the company. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 4:00 am
In Joan Carey v Rockville Centre CSD, Comm. of Ed. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 6:37 am
Anhing Corp. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 3:53 am
Article L.851-3 starts by stating that the processing should not allow the identification of individuals. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 3:46 am
Better English. [read post]
25 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
The latest episode of the UK saga “and what do we do with data retention laws” has been issued by the English High Court, with its judgement in the case David Davis and Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin). [read post]
