Search for: "HARMS v. HARMS"
Results 7041 - 7060
of 36,789
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Feb 2020, 5:13 am
O’Brien v. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 4:42 pm
On 15 August 2023 Collins Rice J handed down judgment in LCG v OVD [2023] EWHC 2058 (KB). [read post]
17 Dec 2016, 4:42 am
Hoffman v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:17 am
Martin v. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 8:18 am
Nature's Earth Products, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 7:40 am
Yesterday the Digital Media Law Project, with help from the Cyberlaw Clinic, filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:15 pm
From an Access to Justice and Civil Right to Counsel perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 4:05 pm
The trial in the libel case of Banks v Cadwalladr began on Friday before Mrs Justice Steyn. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 2:48 pm
Barnstable School Committee, et al. (07-1125) and Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 2:45 am
Court of Appeals in New York City reversed judgment on the manufacturer’s antitrust claims, finding that the manufacturer failed to present evidence that its former partner’s conduct harmed competition. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 6:41 am
Justice Gogoi, upholding the principal laid down in William Staney v State of Madhya Pradesh (SC 1956, AIR 116), also took into consideration that the victim did not die on the spot or very shortly after the infliction of injuries but survived for some days in the hospital before death.On a literal interpretation, the judgment seems in consonance with S 300(a) and (b) of the Indian Penal Code. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 11:06 am
Supreme Court, in revisiting the issue in the case of Kimble v Marvel Entertainment, LLC (as reported by AmeriKat on June 30th), would provide some clarity. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 6:41 am
Justice Gogoi, upholding the principal laid down in William Staney v State of Madhya Pradesh (SC 1956, AIR 116), also took into consideration that the victim did not die on the spot or very shortly after the infliction of injuries but survived for some days in the hospital before death.On a literal interpretation, the judgment seems in consonance with S 300(a) and (b) of the Indian Penal Code. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 2:52 pm
On Monday, March 25, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held oral argument on Dutra Group v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 6:11 am
” Epstein suggests that the Supreme Court made the correct decision in American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 1:45 pm
Our focus today is the recent case of Gordon v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 8:41 am
Wiggins, the following seven factors are considered for prioritizing enforcement efforts: (i) the number of victims or size of harm; (ii) the duration of the harm to consumers; (iii) whether the activity targets vulnerable consumers; (iv) whether consumers have the ability to effectively shop for better products; (v) whether the activity results in any market distortions; (vi) whether there are any existing hurdles to regulatory enforcement over the activity; and (vii)… [read post]
25 May 2020, 1:14 pm
The lawsuit does not cite any actual harm that has so far occurred due to EPA's change in policy but argues only that all kinds of harm are threatened. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 2:00 pm
The procedural history: Last year, the Supremes sent the case back to the Louisiana courts in light of their own February 2007 ruling in Philip Morris v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 11:15 am
See Rhode Island v. [read post]
