Search for: "Leisure v. Leisure"
Results 461 - 480
of 672
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Nov 2017, 7:48 am
Facts of the case In the case in question, King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd (Case C-214/16), the claimant ostensibly worked for the employer as a self-employed contractor from June 1999. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 7:00 am
The style of the case is, The Burlington Insurance Company v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 3:22 pm
Sumedha V. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 9:38 am
In the March 2008 case of Baze v. [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 5:15 pm
Mont Adventure Equipment Pty Ltd v Phoenix Leisure Group Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 84 ps: IPTA was granted leave to intervene (and while advocating the view that the Full Court adopted, was ordered to pay any additional costs incurred by the parties as a result of the intervention). pps:a patentee who needs to rely on a grace period to preserve the validity of the patent in Australia may well still lose the patent outside Australia where the grace period does not apply ');… [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 3:27 am
The overall agreement in which the indemnity clauses were found was for the provision of leisure and hospitality services to the claimant in return for payment. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 9:30 am
The recent unpublished opinion of Kulick v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 5:10 am
’” Canton v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
See In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d at 230 (describing the doctrine as applicable where a plaintiff alleges that the mortgagee breached the parties' underlying agreement) (discussing Leisure Technology-Northeast, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 7:16 am
United States and Padilla v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 7:11 am
The Eastern District in Funcat Leisure Craft, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
See In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d at 230 (describing the doctrine as applicable where a plaintiff alleges that the mortgagee breached the parties' underlying agreement) (discussing Leisure Technology-Northeast, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 12:20 pm
Rothschild, Case No. 1:22-cv-00384, related to trade mark infringement and the sale of NFTs of “MetaBirkins” -pending: motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint denied-; Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 10:21 am
As the Supreme Court explained in INS v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 4:19 pm
Claims for injunctions failed at the first hurdle in Napier v Pressdram Limited [2010] 1 WLR 934 CA and Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB). [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 4:20 pm
Hale's order in Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 5:20 am
Readers can check the Proceedings out for themselves here on this handsome pdf; they can peruse the contents at their leisure, or go on word-searches for their favourite topics. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 4:05 pm
Smith v ADVFN plc & Ors [2010] EWHC 3255 (QB) – 13 Dec 2010 (Tugendhat J). [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 1:25 pm
See Smith v. [read post]
27 Oct 2018, 3:12 pm
The answer to the question whether a group boycott is a per se antitrust violation has meandered through a number of US Supreme Court cases, which you can read at your leisure: Fashion Originators’ Guild of American v. [read post]
