Search for: "*long v. Murphy" Results 541 - 560 of 755
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Nov 2011, 1:19 am
 Merpel remains puzzled as to why it takes so long for the nation's top court to give its rulings. [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 3:59 am by SHG
The other day, the blogversation turned to Perry v. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 9:40 pm
This includes coverage of the law school's recent seminar, chaired by Sir Robin Jacob, on the controversial ECJ rulings in FA Premier League v QC Leisure and Murphy v Media Protection Services (noted by the IPKat here). [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 1:26 am by Melina Padron
Football Association Premier League and Others v QC Leisure and Others Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd October 4, 2011 System of licences for broadcasting football matches which grants broadcasters territorial exclusivity on a Member State basis and prohibits television viewers from watching broadcasts with decoder card in other Member States is contrary to EU law. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 12:14 pm by Dianne Saxe
It is not about retroactive compensation for activities that stopped long before and which were not a nuisance at the time. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 3:53 am
Now drinkers can enjoy the IPKat's football prowess via Greek decoders Breathlessly back on the blog after this morning's envigorating copyright and trade mark law training session with a bright and bushy-tailed batch of trainees, this Kat now turns to the main news of the moment, today's momentous ruling of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David… [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 11:17 am
Murphy 207 NY 240 : 100 NE 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:16 am by John Eastman
. — Marriage, the traditional kind consisting of “the union for life of one man and one woman,” was described by the Supreme Court more than a century ago in Murphy v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 2:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The conduct complained of must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community" (Murphy v American Home Prods. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 6:49 am by David Bernstein
When I’ve blogged about Lochner v. [read post]