Search for: "English v. English"
Results 6681 - 6700
of 11,203
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2013, 5:45 am
This bring us to the second case, Tremblay v. [read post]
9 May 2013, 4:55 am
By Dennis Crouch HTC v. [read post]
8 May 2013, 1:09 pm
., knowledge of English language, etc. [read post]
8 May 2013, 3:00 am
Maclean v. [read post]
4 May 2013, 3:22 pm
United States and Victoria's Secret Direct v. [read post]
Ten ways in which copyright engages freedom of expression, Part 2: Sliders six to ten – Graham Smith
3 May 2013, 5:05 pm
” The UK courts in cases such as Newzbin2, Dramatico v BSkyB andEMI v BSkyB have recognised that blocking injunctions against ISPs engage the freedom of expression rights of internet users. [read post]
2 May 2013, 10:46 am
In Broca v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 8:56 pm
He wrote in English, a language he mastered in prison. [read post]
1 May 2013, 6:13 pm
Rumpole practice tip #19: Be aware of Wilson v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 3:00 am
Maclean v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
People v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 6:46 am
It’s been called “as deplorable and despicable as it is patently offensive,” and “probably the most offensive word in English. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 9:36 am
Robert Sharp, also of English PEN, has dissected some of the detail here and here. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 9:16 am
Vote in McBurney v. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 2:43 am
But whatever happened to the original litigation in Brüstle v Greenpeace? [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 2:07 pm
I learned about them when, through their attorney, they wrote to a moderator of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, threatening a libel suit based on Reddit postings.1 Folks on the UIUC subReddit became actively interested in Suburban Express when University of Illinois student Jeremy Leval wrote a Facebook post claiming that he witnessed a Suburban Express driver berating a passenger for not speaking English well. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 7:04 am
… it has never been an infringement, in either English or EU law, for a person merely to view or read an infringing article in physical form. [read post]
27 Apr 2013, 5:02 pm
The causes of action invoked by the Plaintiff are described by the judge as “diffuse, and imaginative” and they run to an astonishing thirty claims, including Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR; Section 6 of HRA, The Data Protection Act 1988,The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and a recent libel decision of the English Court of Appeal in Tamiz v Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68 which we’ve posted… [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 5:14 pm
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms [2000] AC 115, 126E-G. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 6:55 am
Opinion is divided as to whether the Act will make any significant difference to English libel litigation. [read post]
