Search for: "English v. English"
Results 5361 - 5380
of 11,201
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2015, 9:30 pm
Finally, the article considers the use of English and American precedents relevant to the case. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 3:34 pm
As a corollary to the right to criminal counsel, non-English speaking individuals have the right to an interpreter to enable them to participate meaningfully in their trial and assist in their own defense (see People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272, 274 [1970]; People v Perez, 198 AD2d 446, 447 [1993]; People v De Armas, 106 AD2d 659). [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:27 am
As we reported last year, an English court recognised the existence of a tort of privacy (more accurately, the tort of misuse of private information) in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 11:18 am
Since the father does not speak English, his counsel requested an opportunity to confer with his client with the assistance of a Mandarin-speaking court interpreter. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 6:53 am
In Armstrong v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
Westerhof v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
The case of Fortress Grand v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 3:00 am
Jones denied the International Franchise Association’s (IFA) motion for preliminary injunction in the IFA v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:00 pm
These are provided by the presence of three persons, already referred to in the context of Articles III and V of the Convention, that is to say, the authorised person and the two witnesses. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 5:57 am
In Friday’s Chan v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:53 am
In Vidal-Hall v, Google Inc ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) the Court of Appeal dismissed Google’s appeal from the decision of Tugendhat J in which he declined to declare that the English court did not have jurisdiction to hear data protection and misuse of private information claims brought against it. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 10:39 am
Lord Denning in Miller v Jackson Also in the 1970s, English judge Lord Denning wrote one of his most famous judgments in a case that involved a dispute over cricket balls being hit out of a village cricket ground onto a neighboring property. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:15 am
In Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) the English Court of Appeal dismissed Google’s appeal from its attempt to get the case dismissed noting that “the damages may be small, but the issues of principle are large. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:47 am
The English Data Protection Act was too narrow in what it gave remedies for in such cases, and its limits were therefore inoperative in this case. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:46 am
There was still no infringement or passing off so far as SCRABBLE v SCRAMBLE was concerned, however. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 12:52 am
Bearing this in mind, Case T 378/13 Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM, Carolus C. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 1:54 am
There was nothing to suggest that the non-English speaking public understood the meaning of the word element ‘Royal County of Berkshire’ in RCB's mark. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 8:29 am
” [9] The Court also noted that the English courts (in subsequent cases such as Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust and Chester v Afshar) had quietly ceased to follow Sidaway‘s adoption of the Bolam test. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 6:33 pm
In 4Front Engineered Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 12:57 pm
A familiar sight for lawyersinvolved in TVCatchup suitsITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV 2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corporation, 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited and ITV Studios Limited v TVCatchup Limited (in administration), TVCatchup (UK) Limited and Media Resources Limited (a Mauritian company) [2015] EWCA Civ 204 is the latest development in the long-running copyright litigation saga which is usually known by its shorter name of ITV… [read post]
