Search for: "Carter v. May" Results 421 - 440 of 1,588
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2018, 11:04 am by Steve Kalar
Whitaker, admittedly, may be uninterested in the Judiciary’s views on this issue -- he has bemoaned the Supreme Court’s “bad ruling” in Marbury v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 8:41 am by MATHILDE GROPPO
This rule was summarised in the following terms by May LJ in Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241: “The repetition rule in its simplest application is that, if you publish a statement that Y said that X is guilty, it is not a defence to an action for defamation to establish the literal truth of the publication, ie that it is indeed true that Y said that X is guilty. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
This rule was summarised in the following terms by May LJ in Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241: “The repetition rule in its simplest application is that, if you publish a statement that Y said that X is guilty, it is not a defence to an action for defamation to establish the literal truth of the publication, ie that it is indeed true that Y said that X is guilty. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 2:23 pm
Trade Marks and Domain NamesKat Eleonora Rosati discusses a recent US trade mark case Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, et al., v. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 8:03 am by Hilary Hurd, Elena Chachko
  As a result, the Soviet Union destroyed 1,846 missiles and the United States destroyed 846 missiles by May 28, 1991. [read post]
8 Oct 2018, 6:22 am
 This is the question at the centre of Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, et al., v. [read post]
28 Sep 2018, 4:49 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Corp. v Carter, 99 AD3d 692, 693 [2d Dept 2012] [noting that the statutory remedy is “designed . . . to deter” attorneys from “betraying” this obligation]). [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 4:00 am by Administrator
Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 2:28 am by Roel van Woudenberg
" It may also be worthwhile to consider the observation made in T 2017/12, r.3.1.1 (the decision that led to the referral G 2/14):“The leading decision is J 21/80. [read post]