Search for: "Doe v. Norris" Results 21 - 40 of 251
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2011, 9:04 pm
The driver’s consent to search the car likely does not apply to the other occupant's stuff, and the case is remanded for further fact finding. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 7:52 am
Causation Norris J dealt with a number of issues under this head, most notably asking: "what does Perini generally have to prove to show that LPC's infringement … caused the loss claimed by Perini? [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 9:54 pm by Kirk Jenkins
 Justice Stewart pointed out that the mailbox rule applied to the final step in a workers' comp appeal -- the filing of a notice of appeal from the Circuit to the Appellate Court -- under Harrisburg-Raleigh, and to appeals from the arbitrator to the Commission under Norris v. [read post]
9 Mar 2024, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Koe's case is therefore materially indistinguishable from Doe v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 11:06 am
This morning the Court of Appeal (Jacob and Sedley LJJ and Norris J) handed down its judgment in Nokia v IPCom [2011] EWCA Civ 6.By way of back story: IPCom (described in the judgment as a “non practising entity”, i.e. a patentee with no business of its own in products covered by the patents), owned a number of patents (which it had bought from Bosch) in the field of mobile communications technology. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 6:36 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
But Section 1983 claims have their pitfalls, as demonstrated in this case.The case is Naumovski v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 8:35 am by Joe Consumer
Norris is not happy about this. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 1:02 am
The book does not however discuss the Madrid System in detail. [read post]
8 May 2017, 9:06 am by ALEX BAILIN QC MATRIX
Lord Kerr, dissenting on that aspect, pointed to decisions such as Zenati v MPC [2015] QB 758 (in which a dilatory decision to discontinue a false passport prosecution engaged Article 5 rights) and Norris v USA #2 [2010] 2 AC 487 (obiter dicta concerning the applicability of art 8 regarding detention for the purpose of prosecution). [read post]