Search for: "HUGHES v. HUGHES" Results 381 - 400 of 3,071
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Nov 2017, 5:54 am by INFORRM
Hugh Tomlinson QC and Aidan Wills are members of Matrix Chambers and authors of Online Publication Claims: a Practical Guide. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 11:00 am by Dan Ernst
ComptonCitizenship, Gender, and Conscience: United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Barry Cushman, Notre Dame Law School, has posted The Missing Justice in Coleman v. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am by INFORRM
  To take only one example among many, in the case of Armoniene v Lithuania ([2008] ECHR 1526), which concerned the publication of an individual;s HIV positive status. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:53 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Firearms Dealers; revocation Where gun purchasers had the same last name and/or address as persons whose applications to buy firearms were denied the previous day, the district court reasonably held the sales were willful sales to straw purchasers. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 12:17 pm by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Labor RLA; preemption The Railway Labor Act does not completely preempt retaliatory-discharge claims under state law. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 12:45 am by CMS
In this post, Kenny Henderson, David Bridge, Jessica Foley and Devina Shah, who all work within the litigation and arbitration team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down last week by the UK Supreme Court in the matter Mastercard Incorporated and others v Walter Hugh Merricks CBE [2020] UKSC 51, which has significant implications for the UK competition law collective proceedings (or class actions) regime. [read post]
25 May 2020, 9:15 am
After decades of routinely dismissing such claims, Vice Chancellor Laster’s recent 41-page decision in Hughes v. [read post]
14 Mar 2022, 5:33 pm by INFORRM
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of the Matrix Chambers media and information practice group and editor of Inforrm. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 10:19 am
The real loser in that election, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent in Bush v. [read post]