Search for: "English v. English"
Results 6281 - 6300
of 11,203
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2019, 3:26 am
These appeals concern whether the English court has the power or jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio; to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 7:35 am
We now can see that United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 10:40 am
(paragraph 84) In dealing with the Claimant’s Article 6 point, Stadlen J conducts an equally thorough review of the authorities, including most recently R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust [2010] ICR 101, and R (G) v X School Governors [2010] 1 WLR 2218. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 487 (LC)Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 502 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 509 (LC)No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 580 (LC)Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 598 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 603 (LC)Ninety… [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 487 (LC)Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 502 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 509 (LC)No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 580 (LC)Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 598 (LC)Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 603 (LC)Ninety… [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 5:01 am
The decision, R. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 8:30 am
The word “deodand” she shared is an old English term for an instrument of death. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 8:05 am
I did not speak much English at that time because I had very little practice, and I did not understand listening to it. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 6:51 am
Although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof is undoubtedly well reasoned, it reaches the opposite conclusion to recent English case law: in particular, the English Court of Appeal has (even before Brexit) taken the contrary view that the use of a foreign contractual language or a standard form contract tailored to international transactions would even on a standalone basis be sufficient to constitute a relevant international element – and accordingly allow the parties to… [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 7:17 pm
Williams v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 6:25 am
It's Case T-233/10 Nike International Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Intermar Simanto Nahmias, a General Court (First Chamber) decision on a Community trade mark (CTM) appeal that harks back all the way to 25 May. [read post]
10 May 2012, 6:09 am
Comparing pre-1 July 2012 eligibility requirements – ENS v RSMS DIAC has released two documents which compare the permanent residency visas under the ENS and RSMS pathways. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 4:00 am
In Western Oilfield Equipment Rentals Ltd. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 6:28 am
Recently, the size of judgments in the English courts has been steadily creeping up and they have now reached somewhat obese proportions. [read post]
8 May 2016, 9:52 am
La RFD/CJWL sollicite des textes relevant des catégories suivantes : articles, études de fond, commentaires de jurisprudence, études de cas, notes de recherche, recensions de livres, et observations sur les évènements nationaux et internationaux susceptibles d’intéresser notre lectorat. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 11:03 am
Confession Was Involuntary State v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 4:12 pm
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Flores-Figueroa v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 6:00 am
Shalagin’s main arguments were that he recorded the conversations to help him learn English. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 6:44 am
Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007,about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and therebybecame binding precedents, while the rest were unpublished and boundonly the parties to each case. [38] As Judge Alex Kozinski has explained, binding precedent as we know ittoday simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed. [38]Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfullyreported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply… [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 1:51 pm
But it hasn't been narrowed, and in U.S. v. [read post]
