Search for: "English v. English"
Results 6761 - 6780
of 9,861
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2019, 6:05 am
In Sky v Skykick the defendant argued this removal restricted its freedom to conduct business. [read post]
12 Feb 2025, 6:30 am
My supportive example from the current Supreme Court is United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 6:31 am
In Impression Products v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:50 pm
[It] discusses TechSearch, L.L.C. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 10:19 am
Although Merpel wonders why the offers were not also made under Part 36, the Judge nevertheless decided that the refusal of the offers by ONI was not "highly unreasonable" (as is the test under see White Book CPR 44.3.12, F & C Alternative Investments (Holdings) v Barthelemy [2012] EWCA Civ 843 at [70] (citing Kiam v MGM), Astex Therapeutics v AstraZeneca [2018] EWCA Civ 2444 at [61]-[78]). [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 9:11 am
Jurisdictional Boundaries of Prior Use within Britain: An analysis of the House of Lords’ judgments in Roebuck v Stirling (1774) and Brown v Annandale (1842)Barbara Henry (University of Hertfordshire)Commentator | Eva Hemmungs Wirtén (Linköping University, Sweden) Two cases, 60 years apart. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
An opposition was filed by Manchester United Football Club which, in its way, was the Tesco of English football clubs, there being many oth [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 4:49 am
No…On the question of the implied term, HHJ Hacon found Lord Hoffmann’s comments in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10(a judgment of the Board of the Privy Council) instructive. [read post]
17 Oct 2020, 8:17 am
First, the court looks to whether the cause of action has a traditional basis in harm that has been recognized under English or American courts. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 3:00 am
State v. [read post]
17 May 2015, 1:08 am
By 2012, when the current litigation began, it was the largest pay TV operator there, offering around 200 channels in Mandarin and Cantonese, plus a small number of English language programmes — all being delivered by a set-top box. [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 9:00 am
Panel 3: CopyrightSarah Polcz, Loyalties v. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm
Polansky v. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 12:41 pm
In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 5:09 am
See: R. v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 4:24 pm
X, C-509/09 and Martinez v. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 8:22 am
The English Court of Appeal, for example, in Brian Watson v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 7:18 pm
It also suggests, so far as tax avoidance is concerned, that the test in India, unlike in English law after MacNiven and BMBF, is not simply statutory construction, which is difficult to reconcile with the Court’s subsequent finding that it is.It is also interesting to contrast this with the analysis in Adams v Cape Industries. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 8:17 am
”) [2] Daubert v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 11:52 am
Proctor v. [read post]
