Search for: "Nicholls v. Nicholls"
Results 581 - 600
of 857
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Apr 2011, 11:46 am
Zatarain’s, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 6:00 am
Salinger sued over Hamilton's paraphrasing of his letters and an appeals court ruled against Hamilton, relying on a Learned Hand case, Nichols v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 6:47 am
In National Comics, Hand was able to combine that precept with a copyright principle he had pioneered two decades earlier in Nichols v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 4:15 am
Nichols, Faith-Based Family Laws in Western Democracies? [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:42 am
There follows a succinct account of Strasbourg jurisprudence on this point, from registration of a doctor Konig v Germany (No1) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 170 (civil right) to liability to tax (not a civil right) (Ferrazini v Italy (44759/98) (2001) STC 1314), via the all important decision in Pellegrin v France (2001) 31 EHRR 26 ECHR not to allow administrative servants the guarantees of Article 6 because their employment involves important state… [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 1:37 am
See Nichols v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:34 pm
This reflects the current law as stated in Chase v News Group Newspapers ([2002] EWCA Civ 1772). [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a request for an oral… [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a request for an oral… [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 5:47 pm
” (Hays Plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068 (QB) at [62]). [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 11:02 am
Madore v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
The judge referred to the passage in Lord Nicholls’ speech in Reynolds v Times Newspapers where, after having set out the essential test and illustrative guidelines (at page 205A-C), he ended his summary of the relevant principles (at page 205F) with these words (emphasis added): “Above all, the court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 7:10 am
The rule has been disapplied in “Reynolds/Jameel” cases, because of the need to make that defence practical and effective: Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300 PC at [21-22] (Lord Nicholls). [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
See, e.g., Nichols v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 11:08 am
Nichols Kaster PLLP (FKA NKA (that is, Nichols Kaster & Anderson) has won an appeal before the United States Supreme Court today in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 7:42 am
Huber, Hunt, Nichols, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 9:04 am
While the Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh had regarded it as an open question whether Reynolds applies to opinion, Lords Nicholls and Hobhouse had said in Reynolds ([2001] 2 AC 127, at 201 and 193-5 per Lord Nicholls and 237-8 per Lord Hobhouse.) that the expression of opinion was protected, if at all by, by fair comment. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 10:56 am
Goldberg, Professor of Law Nathaniel Nichols, Associate Professor of LawI’m not sure I understand what this means, as it’s not clear to me what the other “proceedings” are that are “underway,” but according to Connell’s lawyer, quoted at the NAS blog, it’s very good news: According to his lawyer, Connell is “very happy over the recommendation to dismiss the charges against him. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 6:16 am
See, e.g., Nichols v. [read post]
