Search for: "V. B." Results 21 - 40 of 61,945
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm by Max Weirauch
She received a California County Counsels’ Litigation Award for preparing an amicus brief on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in Elisa B. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:21 am by Michael Oykhman
Regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy, a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 noted that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, location or circumstance if the person does not expect to be secretly recorded or observed. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:19 am by Frances Barker
Read the full judgment here: South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Massmart Holding Limited and Others (JA119/2022) [2024] ZALAC 13 (29 April 2024) (saflii.org) [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 5:50 am by Michael Oykhman
Accessing child pornography (4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 5:27 am by Michael Oykhman
This was discussed in the case of R v McSween (2020), ONCA 343 (CanLII). [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 8:00 am
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, (EEOC v. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 6:51 am by Dan Bressler
” — “On April 3, 2024, the Court entered an Order Continuing the Hearing on the V&E Application, noting that V&E had disclosed: (a) that it represents certain Officers and Directors of the Debtors in shareholder and derivative litigation; and (b) that it represents the Riverstone entities, which are equity security holders in the Debtors (discussed below). [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 4:49 pm by INFORRM
First, following Curistan v Times Newspapers [2009] QB 231, qualified privilege operates so that the relevant privileged words are ignored for defamation purposes, at least as far as meaning is concerned, except insofar as they provide context for non-privileged words [56]. [read post]