Search for: "Brown v. Ives"
Results 361 - 380
of 466
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am
No. 66746/01 as interpreted by Lord Brown in Kay at [210]). [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 1:11 pm
I. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 10:48 am
Pursuant to Brown v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 2:18 am
Brown cites Ormsby v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 3:25 am
The County asked Justice Joseph dismiss her claim on the grounds that she had not shown that she had been actually exposed to blood or fluid seropositive for HIV, citing Brown v New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, 225 AD2d 36.Justice Joseph said that New York courts have repeatedly dealt with the elements required to establish a cause of action for negligence based on the fear of contracting AIDS. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 6:54 am
IV. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 2:50 pm
Doe A. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm
Lujan v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 5:10 am
Leading off this week is the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in Mark Dwyatt Brown v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 10:46 pm
Jay also quotes Crown Emak Partners v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:52 am
(iv) The ECHR is concerned to guarantee rights that are practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory (see See eg Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1, [71]). [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 10:32 am
That might be so at the interlocutory stage in an attempt to avoid the rule in Bonnard v Perryman: a matter, it will be recalled that exercised this court in Woodward v Hutchins. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 4:54 am
While the rest of the world has its eyes trained on the United States, desperately seeking first sight of In re Bilski, patent litigation is still taking place elsewhere, as is evidenced by last week's carefully-framed decision in KCI Licensing Inc and others v Smith and Nephew plc and others [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat), a ruling of Mr Justice Arnold (Patents Court for England and Wales).Right: the IPKat is all in favour of dressings that don't press on his earsThis case, the second to… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1… [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:36 am
When you read the complete text of Hamilton v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 7:34 pm
Co. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 9:01 am
Ferguson was decided it was a "fact" that separate could be equal, while by 1954, when the Court decided Brown v. [read post]
