Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 381 - 400
of 4,033
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2021, 7:42 am
May God save the United States of America, the state of Florida, and this honorable court. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 12:41 am
At the outset of the hearing the Judge stated that his objection in the BMS case was directed to a paper application for the listing of the trial being made when the scope of the trial and in particular that there was another action to be joined to it, was not fully appreciated. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 4:55 am
These principles (as approved and slightly amended by Blindley Heath Investments Ltd & Anor v Bass [2015] EWCA Civ 1023 (“Blindley Heath”)) were referred to in Lord Burrows’ Supreme Court judgment: It is not enough that the common assumption is merely understood by the parties in the same way. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 6:40 pm
See too Re Bakhshiyeva v Sberbank of Russia [2019] Bus LR 1130 (CA); [2018] EWCA 2802. [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 10:47 am
See State v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:30 am
In Fisher v. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 3:56 am
Access to justice The case of (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51; [2020] AC 869 is concerned with the lawfulness of policy which impedes an individual’s access to a court or tribunal. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 3:50 am
Greg Lambert 6:21 Oh, my lord. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 11:20 am
Tex. 2005) (Jack, J.)). [9] Mississippi Valley Silica Co. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 2:29 am
The minority (Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs and Lord Sales) would have held that section 32(1)(c) has no application to mistakes of law. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
R. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 6:46 am
The Court of Appeal decision The lead judgment, with which Lord Justices Phillips and Moylan agreed, was given by Lord Justice Males. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:40 pm
” This refers to the judgment of the House of Lords in the Naomi Campbell case. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 2:35 am
The appellants, SC and CB (“the adult appellants”), SC’s three youngest children and CB’s five children (“the child appellants”), brought proceedings against the respondents, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Lords Commissioners of HM Treasury, and the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs. [read post]
[Guest post] How much is that SEP in the window? 5 Themes from the IPKat/LSE Nokia v Daimler seminar
5 Jul 2021, 7:40 am
However, Eeva disagreed, stating that in her view the ETSI principle was to license end products and that was how IPR holders had always understood it. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 7:20 am
" Wrote Justice Gorsuch, concurring in Amos Mast v. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 6:41 am
State Dickinson School of Law. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
As neither of the third parties had dealt with the Secretary of State, the claim could only succeed if the court said that the dealing requirement did not form part of the ratio of OBG or departed from that case (which, incidentally, was one of three cases dealt with together by the House of Lords, one of the others being better-known to IP lawyers: Douglas v Hello!). [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
As neither of the third parties had dealt with the Secretary of State, the claim could only succeed if the court said that the dealing requirement did not form part of the ratio of OBG or departed from that case (which, incidentally, was one of three cases dealt with together by the House of Lords, one of the others being better-known to IP lawyers: Douglas v Hello!). [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 2:00 am
He is also incorrect to suggest that it makes any difference whether an appellate court, when rejecting an Edwards v Bairstow challenge, expresses its agreement with the conclusion of the fact-finding tribunal or states only that the tribunal was entitled to reach that conclusion on the material before it. [read post]
