Search for: "HUGHES v. HUGHES"
Results 661 - 680
of 3,074
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2017, 1:17 am
Lord Justice Hughes emphasised that there is no ambiguity or obscurity in the law that would require a further investigation into Parliament's meaning of the section, particularly in relation to the defendants' argument on the different meanings of counterfeit and 'grey goods' (and subsequent differing treatment under section 92).Lord Justice Hughes acknowledged that there has been a distinction between the two in the case of R v Johnstone; however, the… [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 5:53 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 8:00 am
In Hughes v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 11:53 am
There are some sticky issues under the US Supreme Court decision, Keller v. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 7:40 am
In Milum v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 6:30 am
Hughes gives a detailed examination of ECHR, art 7, and the Grand Chamber decision in Scoppola v Italy (No 2) (2010) 51 EHRR 12, which the appellant relied on, and the implications thereof, at paras 29–56. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:24 pm
V. [read post]
3 Jul 2009, 1:30 pm
(Normally, one will interact in the workplace more frequently than with a third party.)The Court also held that Hughes' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was barred because the alleged conduct was not sufficient extreme and outrageous, and because Hughes and not proved she suffered "severe" emotional distress.The opinion is Hughes v. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 2:20 pm
Barr and Ovalles v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 2:00 am
Rather, the test, as set forth in Cox v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 5:00 am
The other "grant and hold" case is Hughes v. [read post]
Medical Device Cases Brightened by Recent U.S. Court of Appeals Decision; Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc.
12 Oct 2013, 9:00 am
In a 5th Circuit case of Hughes v. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 5:02 pm
In the case of Glik v Cunniffe (26 August 2011) the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public. [read post]
22 May 2012, 6:20 am
In Townsend v. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 2:15 pm
Hughes (argue)Insufficient evidence of alternative meansImproper admission of defendant's statementsState v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 6:45 am
Co. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
The post Case Preview: Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 4:46 pm
The EFF argued that the embedding of Section 230 into NAFTA/USMCA “could help roll back the precedent set in the Google v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 3:17 pm
(slip op. at 6 (citing Darby v. [read post]
MBL/Inforrm Conference Paper: “Defamation Bill: Trivial Libels and Jurisdiction” – Hugh Tomlinson QC
20 Jul 2010, 4:30 am
Furthermore, the result of the decision in Thornton v. [read post]
