Search for: "Payne v. Doe" Results 21 - 40 of 290
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Apr 2015, 11:32 am
McDonaldHolding:  Where the first permittee is not present in the vehicle, omnibus coverage does not extend to a second permittee if that driver deviates from an authorized purpose.Facts:  The named insured owned the vehicle, which was covered by Defendant’s insurance policy. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 7:49 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of “whether the compelled use of Payne’s thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial,” the ruling in United States v. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 10:29 pm
Z (A child) [2012] EWHC 139 (Fam) is, to my knowledge, the first reported relocation case since MK v CK [2011] EWCA Civ 793.To briefly recap, in MK v CK it was made clear that the only principle to be drawn from Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052 - which had skewed relocation decisions for ten years - was the paramountcy principle - everything else was guidance.Returning to Z (A child) :The facts: This case comes with a lot of 'baggage', primarily… [read post]