Search for: "Ace v. State" Results 401 - 420 of 1,872
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2019, 3:49 am by Distinctlydigital
This case (R v Gold & Schifreen (1988) 1 AC 1063) resulted in the Computer Misuse Act 1990. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:46 am by Sally-Ann Underhill and Mira Midelieva
Boskalis relied on legal authorities on exclusion and limitation clauses, according to which “clarity of contractual language” is required for provisions that “restrict the rights and remedies normally available to a party” (see, inter alia, Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] AC 689). [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
“Likely” in this context normally means “more likely than not”, though a lesser prospect of success may suffice where the Court needs a short time to consider evidence/argument, or where the adverse consequences of publication might be extremely serious: Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253 [16]-[23] (Lord Nicholls); ABC v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2329 [2019] EMLR 5 [16]. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
” At the National Conference of State Legislators Blog, Lisa Soronen looks at Georgia v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 5:30 am by Bill Marler
To improve surveillance, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists has recommended that all L. monocytogenes isolates be forwarded to state public health laboratories for subtyping through the National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance (PulseNet). [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 4:34 pm by INFORRM
Warby J referred to the leading case of Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 in which an article concerning two characters from the TV series “Neighbours” appeared to be photographed having sex with each other. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
The judgment also stated that the rule in Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371 (according to which where several persons have published words to the same or similar effect it is not legitimate for a defendant to seek to reduce damages by proving the publications of the defendant or others and inviting an inference that those other publications have injured the claimant’s reputation) remains applicable to a section 1(1) determination, as it would not make… [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Paten v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
8 Jun 2019, 5:43 am by Joel R. Brandes
Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., 141 A.D.3d 626, 627, 34 N.Y.S.3d 616).Oral promise to pay credit card bills during the pendency of action unenforceable            In Novick v Novick, ‑‑‑ N.Y.S.3d ‑‑‑‑, 2019 WL 2202438 (Mem), 2019 N.Y. [read post]
27 May 2019, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
The first strand Mr Sterling emphasised the importance of the headline, in particular Lord Nicholls’ observation that “Those who print defamatory headlines are playing with fire” (Charleston v News Group Newspapers Limited [1995] 2 AC 65, 74). [read post]
23 May 2019, 3:31 pm by Melanie Fontes
  He currently is Co-Chair of the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter. [read post]
23 May 2019, 4:26 am by CMS
Lord Carnwath traced the case law on “ouster” clauses back to Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, the widest reading of which was summarised by Lord Diplock in O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 279 as follows (emphasis added): “…if a tribunal whose jurisdiction was limited by statute or subordinate legislation mistook the law applicable to the facts as it had found them, it must have asked itself the wrong… [read post]