Search for: "Hoffman v. Hoffman" Results 641 - 660 of 1,525
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 May 2014, 11:40 am
In striking that balance, it is important to bear in mind that, as Lord Hoffman and Jacob LJ have pointed out, both the patentee and the third party will generally rely on skilled professional advice (and may have a remedy if the advice is incompetent). [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 9:05 pm by Bryn Hines
Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 6:09 pm
His Lordship adopted an explanation by Hoffman LJ (as he then was) in Walton v Walton that proprietary estoppel looks backwards from the moment when the promise falls due to be performed. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 7:50 am
Please join us for a timely and important discussion.Panelists:Paul Hoffman, Counsel for Plaintiffs in Kiobel v. [read post]
18 Feb 2008, 5:00 pm
This is a short comment on the Court's decision last term in Scott v. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 10:31 am
The RIAA's case against this disabled single mother, Atlantic v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 3:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
We further conclude that the Surrogate properly determined that the breach of fiduciary claim against respondent law firm was, in essence, a claim for legal malpractice and thus was barred by the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [6]; Harris v Kahn, Hoffman, Nonenmacher & Hochman, LLP, 59 AD3d 390). [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 2:32 pm
Eric Hoffman, No. 98,394 (Greenwood)Direct appeal; First degree murderKorey KaulFailure to instruct on misdemeanor manslaughterSufficiency of evidence of proximate causeImproper admission of prior bad act evidenceImproper admission of gruesome photographs [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 12:19 am by INFORRM
In reaching this conclusion, the Senior Master referred to: Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 at [132]; McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73 per Buxton LJ at [8]; Wainwright v The Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 at [18]-[19] and [23], [43] and [62]  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the notion of a tort of physical intrusion privacy were given short shrift. [read post]