Search for: "Courts v. Campbell"
Results 481 - 500
of 2,914
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2019, 7:29 pm
In Kotler v. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am
This event is closed to the public.Student Presenters:Jonathon Booth, Harvard University (jonathonbooth@g.harvard.edu) The Birth of Policing in Post-Emancipation JamaicaLauren Feldman, Johns Hopkins University (lauren.feldman@jhu.edu) Constructing Legal Matrimony and the State in New York and the United States: Debating New York's Marriage Act of 1827 and its EffectsJamie Grischkan, Boston University (jgrisch@bu.edu) Banking, Law, and American Liberalism: The Rise and… [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 2:05 pm
The question in the title of this post is an oversimplified version of the issue addressed by the court of appeals last week in State v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 11:04 am
What a Court will do is look back on the case law (judicial precedent) for guidance. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 3:03 am
Royal Courts of Justice Author David Castor Reproduced pursuant to CCO 1.0 Source Wikipedia Royal Courts of Justice Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Recorder Campbell QC) NXP BV v ID Management Systems [2019] EWHC 1902 (IPEC) (31 July 2019) This was an action for trade mark infringement. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 3:00 am
State v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 2:00 am
With respect to A-Train being high on Compound V, a June 2019 Washington Court of Appeals case might be instructive. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 11:45 am
Case citation: Campbell v. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 11:03 am
Campbell, Timothy D. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 7:55 am
A previous Slaw article (which you can read here) discussed the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that confirmed that the stringent test set out in Health Sciences Assoc of BC v Campbell River and North Island Transition Society (Campbell River) to determine if there was a duty to accommodate based on family status and if there is a prima facie case of discrimination based on family status, continues to be the applicable test in British Columbia. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
In R v McKenzie, a 2015 case from the Ontario Superior Court, Campbell J crafted a procedure for determining whether the prosecution had edited too much information from an ITO. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 11:57 am
Campbell and Timothy D. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 8:38 am
Great Minds v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 9:12 am
A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision confirmed that the stringent test set out in Health Sciences Assoc of BC v Campbell River and North Island Transition Society (B.C.C.A., 2004 “Campbell River“) to determine if there was a duty to accommodate based on family status and if there is a prima facie case of discrimination based on family status, continues to be the applicable test in British Columbia. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 12:30 am
Claridge's Hotel Author Tim Westcott Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikipedia Claridge's Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Recorder Campbell) Claridge's Hotel Ltd v Claridge Candles Ltd and Another [2019] EWHC 2003 (IPEC) This was an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:59 pm
It is also somewhat surprising that the Court did not deal with the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in its Grand Chamber decision in Barbulescu v Romania (2017) 44 BHRC 17 or in its admissibility decision in Garamukanwa v UK (app. no 70573/17, decision of 6 June 2019). [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 10:21 am
This argument did not impress Mr Campbell, given that (a) the Supreme Court expressly approved Mr Justice Arnold's (as he then was) test for proportionality in O2; and (b) the appeal in O2 was decided (in favour of the Claimants) after the Supreme Court's judgment. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 9:46 am
The courts of Rome have further refused to involve the European Court to confirm and clarify the interpretation and applicability of the EC Directive. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 6:14 pm
Campbell, Timothy D. [read post]
