Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 6381 - 6400
of 7,360
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2010, 5:45 pm
The Fourth Section deals with English cases and its defamation and privacy decisions are of immediate relevance to English lawyers. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 10:45 am
However, in Dillon, the Court must look to its own decision in one of the major decisions of the decade, United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 4:55 am
Disciplinary charges allege use of inappropriate languageBernstein v Norwich City School District, 282 A.D.2d 70, leave to appeal denied, 96 N.Y.2d 937In May 1998 Richard C. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 2:11 pm
Tang v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 4:39 am
U.S. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 3:37 am
ACTA Meanwhile it's not as if the United States can escape similar criticism. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 5:15 pm
This is only the third case in which such a finding has been made – the other two are Pfeifer v Austria (2007) 48 EHRR 175 and Petrina v Romania Judgment of 14 October 2008). [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 11:33 am
Lord Mustill in Powell and English stated that where D and P embark on a criminal venture in which P goes further than D wishes, but foreseeably so, D has a measure of culpability for P’s act and V’s resulting death but usually at a lower level than P, D is guilty of murder. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 7:14 am
There’s lots to discuss in plain English. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:30 am
He brought suit in state court under various theories of recovery, including strict products liability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, alienation of affection, and the offensive use of laches. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 11:19 am
Introduction: Margaret Tabb, Chair of English Department. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 7:39 am
SE C.V. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 7:01 am
Part II consists of papers by Osofsky on Massachusetts v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:58 am
(Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog) US Patents – Decisions Split Federal Circuit panel finds preamble language not limiting: Marrin v Griffin (GRAY on Claims) (Inventive Step) District Court E D Texas: Inequitable conduct expert could not testify as to materiality absent qualification as a person skilled in the art: Advanced Technology Incubator, Inc v Sharp Corporation et al (Docket Report) District Court N D California: Intracompany patent transfer strikes again:… [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 3:41 pm
The inability of the RSPB to provide such an undertaking in damages led to the unfortunate consequence in the case of R. v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex p. [read post]
27 Mar 2010, 12:55 pm
The Court did decide one case this week, United Student Aid Funds v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 11:26 am
In Singleton v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 8:20 am
On Thursday, 18 March 2010, the weblog of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice published a piece of news under the title “Exclusive jurisdiction clauses and antisuit injunctions”, on a new English case on anti-suit injunctions under the Brussels Regulation (the “other” State being a third State). [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 10:25 am
Midnight Marine Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 9:45 am
In summation, defense counsel had stated that damages should be no more than $15,000. [read post]
