Search for: "Nichols v. Smith" Results 41 - 60 of 71
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2009, 9:54 pm
Thorimbert  (1966), 56 W.W.R. 497, Kirke Smith L.J.S.C. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am by INFORRM
In that context, it has been held that “the values enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 are now part of the cause of action for breach of confidence” (See Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 at [17] (Lord Nicholls) and that it is necessary to consider Strasbourg jurisprudence to establish the scope of that domestic cause of action, since those Articles are now “not merely of persuasive or parallel effect” but are “the very content of… [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
  The Guardian has a piece The case in courtroom 18D: Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case set for momentous 12-week trial. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 4:33 pm by INFORRM
Cambridge v Makin, heard 8 to 12 November 2010 (Tugendhat J) Pritchard Englefield & anr v Steinberg heard 19 November 2010 (Eady J) Wallis & anr v Meredith heard 29 November and 1 December 2010 (Christopher Clarke J) Smith v ADVFN Plc & ors heard 3 December 2010 (Tugendhat J) [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 7:55 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Idea/expression dichotomy: Nichols/Learned Hand abstraction test. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 4:33 pm by INFORRM
This was made clear in the recent case of Doyle v Smith – this concerned a “citizen journalist” who had his own blog the “Caddington News”. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 12:46 pm by admin
June 20, 2000) (noting that “question of intent is a classic jury question and not one for experts”); Smith v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:00 am by Adam Wagner
Ornella Saibene, Robert Nicholls, Thomas Woodhead, Christopher ? [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 7:44 am by Eric Muller
Smith Reynolds Foundation, the Jesse Ball DuPont Fund, the Knight Foundation, and the Fletcher Foundation, among many others. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
In Doyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB) (see our blog here) the defendant blogger’s public interest defence failed because he did not adequately plead and prove that he had believed it was in the public interest to publish the statement complained of. [read post]