Search for: "J Hughes" Results 421 - 440 of 1,071
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2012, 9:15 am by Sheldon Toplitt
Sun-Times Media LLC d/b/a Chicago Sun-Times (Case No. 12-cv-00658), alleges the defendant violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA") [18 U.S.C. secs. 2721-2725] by including information, such as the officers' birthdates, height, weight, hair color and eye color, in a story that included photo lineups of the plaintiffs along with Richard J. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 11:18 am
| Beware of your old expert reports, as Henry Carr J allows hearsay expert evidence in Illumina v Ariosa | Still want to be a UPC judge? [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
The post Storm timeline: California braces for rain, ‘life-threatening’ flooding appeared first on J&Y Law Firm. [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 5:21 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
The post Tornadoes kill 4 in Oklahoma, leaving trail of destruction and thousands without power appeared first on J&Y Law Firm. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:00 am by INFORRM
Comment Despite the manifestly unpleasant nature of the broadcast comments and Abella J’s powerful dissent, the decision of the majority accords with conventional common law principles in relation to group libels. [read post]
7 Aug 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
Certaines de ces capsules concernent Jérémy. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 2:42 am by INFORRM
Date Case Name Reference Court Subject Matter Posts Final win -  C or D 15.12.10 Shergill v Purewal Sir Charles Gray Libel  Summary Determination D 13.12.10 Smith v ADVFN [2010] EWHC 3255 (QB) Tugendhat J Libel  Summary Determination D 3.12.10 Lait v Evening Standard (No.2) [2010] EWHC 3239 (QB) Eady J Libel  Fair Comment Summary Determination D 24.11.10 Daniels v BBC [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) Sharp J Libel  Strike Out 5RB D 8.11.10… [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 11:48 pm by INFORRM
Vos J reserved judgment on the extent of the redactions. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
The Patents Court (Arnold J. [2015] RPC 6) had decided that none of the Actavis products would directly or indirectly infringe the patent. [read post]