Search for: "Ades v. Brush" Results 61 - 80 of 249
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2015, 2:51 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  The Supreme Court brushed off an argument to that effect as defaulted in Chaidez v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:35 pm by Lawrence Solan
   The defendant denies having said in her native language the equivalent of what the interpreter attributes to her in English, and the court must then decide what to do.In United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 4:43 am by Edith Roberts
” At Reuters, Alison Frankel suggests that next term’s Salman v. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
The second caveat to the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it interpreted the effect of the MGN v UK case as being that: “where a claim involves restricting a defendant’s freedom of expression, it would normally be a breach of its article 10 rights to require it to reimburse the claimant any success fee or ATE premium which he would be liable to pay” (emphasis added). [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm by John Elwood
  But thanks anyway for visiting and adding to the viewer count. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 1:34 pm by Giles Peaker
The District Judge added the Simmons v Castle 10% uplift to the disrepair general damages. [read post]
Lord Hope added the comment that, although the scope and subject matter of the appeal was defined by the conclusions in the closure notice, s.50, TMA meant that the tribunal was not tied to the precise wording of the closure notice when hearing the appeal. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 3:41 am
The government has also suggested the use of a kitemark to alert consumers where ads have been air-brushed. [read post]
8
29 Oct 2018, 12:22 pm by Karen T. Willitts, Esq.
In the published opinion in the matter of T.M. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 7:08 am by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
Hayleigh Bosher briefly summarized the main points of the questionnaire, adding her reflections on some of the questions asked by the UK IPO. [read post]