Search for: "Carr v. Case" Results 41 - 60 of 1,010
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Carr and the court-led reapportionment revolution. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 3:39 am
  The current 2019 proceedings sees the same parties go to trial who formed the second case in the 2017 trial, namely Illumina & Sequenom v Ariosa. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
"But, probably for good reason, Carr J did not set about summarizing that case law in the judgment.There were three issues on the claim interpretation of Integer [D]:1. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 3:44 am by Ryan Dolby-Stevens, Olswang LLP
    [1] International Energy Group Limited v Zurich Insurance plc UK [2012] EWHC 69 (Comm) [2] Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20 [3] International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK [2013] EWCA Civ 39 [4] BAI (Run off) Ltd (In Scheme of Arrangement) and others v Durham and others [2012] 1 WLR 867 [5] Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 The post Case Preview: International Energy Group Ltd v… [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 3:10 am
Often, one side will press for the introduction of evidence such as medical records or the testimony of one's psychotherapist in order to undercut that person's fitness as a parent or to gain some other advantage in the case. [read post]
20 May 2016, 8:58 am by Brian Cordery
Even if he was wrong on that, after carefully considering the House of Lords case of Merrell Dow v Norton [1996] (which he noted to be consistent with the EBA in G1/92), Carr J found that there would have been no enabling disclosure. [read post]
11 Nov 2006, 9:16 am
An interesting post from the Second Circuit Blog on the case of United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 9:00 am by Addison Morris
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in two cases titled Kansas v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 9:03 pm by Walter Olson
Jim Beck recounts what happened when the inimitable jurist was presented with the case of Carr v. [read post]