Search for: "English v. English"
Results 5901 - 5920
of 11,203
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2016, 2:31 am
There is an existing precedent from the English court in this respect: the case of Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Limited. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 8:25 pm
Vaughan v. [read post]
Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Stevens -On the Majority's musings and UK patent law)
18 Jul 2010, 11:41 am
A couple of weeks ago, the AmeriKat wrote about Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the much-awaited Supreme Court case of Bilski v Kappos. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 1:52 am
Also in Strasbourg at the moment is the Animal Defenders International v. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 11:43 am
V (1780). [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 12:28 am
The last case awarding damages in this region was in 2013 where the false allegation of human trafficking was made by the Defendants (Al-Amoudi v Kifle and another [2013] EWHC 293 (QB)). [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 2:58 am
It would have been entirely foreseeable by SOMO that a majority of the letters of credit against which they sold oil would be issued out of London and subject to English law. [read post]
10 Sep 2024, 4:21 am
In May 2024, the English Supreme Court handed down judgment in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV.[1] The Supreme Court found that MUR Shipping BV (MUR) was entitled to rely on a force majeure clause to suspend its obligations under the contract of affreightment between the parties. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 9:44 am
(See Johnson v. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 4:01 pm
Or will it be the Florida Kleiman v Wright lawsuit? [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:12 am
Inghams sought to restrain the referral to arbitration and failed at first instance; see Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hannigan [2019] NSWSC 1186. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 6:58 am
Ct. 2162, 2171 (2019); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 2:15 pm
None of the Plaintiffs is a native English speaker, and some cannot read or write in English. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 4:00 am
In Baker v. [read post]
30 Mar 2021, 7:21 pm
Moreover, the justification for limiting Foster’s rule to contractual claims remains unclear: in Jonathan Ang Phang JCA cited the English High Court’s decision in Lilly Icos LLC v 8PM Chemists Ltd [2010] FSR 4 for it, but there that proposition was simply accepted without argument (Lilly Icos, [266]). [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 4:07 am
The first was Rosales-Mireles v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:45 am
Lucia) Limited et al v. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 7:27 am
’ (quoting Pure Power Boot Camp v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 1:28 pm
In the courts Keyu v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:56 pm
INTA filed a brief in Nokia Corporation v. [read post]
