Search for: "Clark v. Burden" Results 381 - 400 of 684
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2012, 8:56 am by Lindsay Griffiths
– Not Descriptive and Not Confusing from Clark Wilson: Clark Wilson's Larry Munn discusses the Federal Court's recent ruling in Movenpick Holding AG v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:15 pm by Bexis
“[A] defendant would have an easier time rebutting a plaintiff’s prima facie case of design defect under the traditional standard than meeting the tough burden of “earning” the comment k exemption. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 10:41 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) An interesting National Law Journal op-ed from Clark Neily and Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice, about a case of theirs, Locke v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 3:48 pm by NL
The Judge accepted that Ms B intended to return tot he Highbury flat, but could not be sure quite when at the relevant time.The Judge then referred to Brown v Brash and Ambrose [1948] 2 KB 247 and Brickfield Properties Ltd v Hughes (1987) 20 HLR 108, and finished:It seems to me that these 2 cases are authority for the proposition that if Ms Boyle had an intention to return to Avenell Mansions at some time in the future – and I think that that time in the future probably… [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 3:48 pm by NL
The Judge accepted that Ms B intended to return tot he Highbury flat, but could not be sure quite when at the relevant time.The Judge then referred to Brown v Brash and Ambrose [1948] 2 KB 247 and Brickfield Properties Ltd v Hughes (1987) 20 HLR 108, and finished:It seems to me that these 2 cases are authority for the proposition that if Ms Boyle had an intention to return to Avenell Mansions at some time in the future – and I think that that time in the future probably… [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 11:32 am by Thomas Merrill
On December 7, the Court will hear argument in PPL Montana, LLC v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:12 pm by James R. Marsh
Another key to interpreting a statute is that when Congress includes language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same law, it is presumed that Congress intentionally excluded the language.23 The presumptively intentional omission of “proximate result” from the first five subsections suggests that Congress did not want to burden victims of child abuse images with a requirement that they show a proximate cause for these losses. [read post]