Search for: "In Interest of DCC" Results 41 - 48 of 48
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2012, 5:23 pm by INFORRM
As to the first, no privilege arose on the facts; and, even if one did, the interests of justice required that it be precluded (Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd v AAB Export Finance Ltd [1990] 1 IR 469 (SC); Murphy v Kirwan [1993] 3 IR 501 (SC); Miley v Flood [2001] 1 ILRM 489, [2001] 2 IR 50, [2001] IEHC 9 (24 January 2001); Fyffes v DCC [2005] 1 IR 59 (SC), [2005] IESC 3 (27 January 2005) applied). [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 10:57 am by Venkat
This extraterritorial reach, in turn, makes the law presumptively violative of the DCC, negating the applicability of the Pike balancing test. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 7:23 am by Eric Goldman
The State has no legitimate interest, much less a compelling one, in bringing about this unprecedented result. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 11:08 am by Eric Goldman
The bill will dramatically degrade the Internet experience for everyone and will empower a new censorship-focused regulator who has no interest or expertise in balancing complex and competing interests. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 11:08 am by Eric Goldman
By mandating royalty payouts despite limited ties to California, the bill ensures that many/most DJPs will not be California-based or have any interest in California-focused journalism. [read post]