Search for: "Castle v. Castle"
Results 701 - 720
of 1,085
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2012, 11:35 am
Castle Texas Production, L.P., 11-0161 The Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 1:33 am
In the case of Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039 (a personal injury case) the Lord Chief Justice took the opportunity to announce that after 1 April 2013, general damages in tortious claims would increase by 10%. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
” Understanding Flava Works v myVidster: does inline linking infringe copyright? [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
.” Chris Castle offers a great sendoff for Helienne Lindvall’s Excellent Column. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 9:52 pm
I mentioned the other day some of the anomalies thrown up by the Court of Appeal's recent judgment that general damages should be increased by 10% where judgment is given after 1 April 2013. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
S. 82 (1879); and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 9:01 pm
In 1895, the Supreme Court took up the cause of the true man in Beard v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 2:59 am
I see that the Lord Chief Justice has just announced in the case of Simmons v Castle that general damages in personal injury and other cases will rise by 10% from 1 April 2013. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 9:26 pm
The Court of Appeal has implemented (somewhat by the back door) Jackson LJ's proposal for a 10% increase in general damages (too partially compensate claimants for losing recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums) in its recent judgement in Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 6:57 am
We wouldn’t usually cover a PI case here on NL, but Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039 has – and is intended to have – implications far beyond PI. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 6:57 am
We wouldn’t usually cover a PI case here on NL, but Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039 has – and is intended to have – implications far beyond PI. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 5:01 am
” This flirts with overturning the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in State v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 11:31 am
" For an even more heroic attempt to ignore the statute of limitations, see Knights Templar v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:30 am
" Taylor v. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 5:45 pm
A man’s house is his castle. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:06 am
(Baccash v Sayegh, 53 AD3d at 639 [quoting Harris v Stony Clove Lake Acres, 202 AD2d 745, 747 (3d Dept 1994)].) [*5] The caselaw cited above appears to consider the issue in terms of both "standing to sue" (New Castle Siding Co., Inc. v Wolfson, 97 AD2d at 502) and "having a cause of action" (id.) . [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
I want to approach this question normatively, first, because I believe this to be somewhat of a novel issue, wrapped inside an already contemplated dilemma; however I am (secretly, but not so much anymore) really hoping to hear at least one person propose an outcome similar to MGM Studios, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 12:14 pm
See, e.g., Katz v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 12:14 pm
See, e.g., Katz v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 10:03 am
Jessica Gonzales v. [read post]
