Search for: "Chapman v. Smith" Results 61 - 80 of 118
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm by NL
On Mr B's aplication for a stay until determination of his planning appeal, this did not stand a realistic prospect of success Against the argued precedents of South Buckinghamshire District Council v Smith [2006] EWHC 281 QB, South Cambridgeshire DC v Price [2008] EWHC 1234 (Admin) and Brentwood Borough Council v Ball [2009] EWHC 2433 (QB), where injunctions had been refused pending planning appeals, there was the fact that these all concerned injunction… [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm by NL
On Mr B's aplication for a stay until determination of his planning appeal, this did not stand a realistic prospect of success Against the argued precedents of South Buckinghamshire District Council v Smith [2006] EWHC 281 QB, South Cambridgeshire DC v Price [2008] EWHC 1234 (Admin) and Brentwood Borough Council v Ball [2009] EWHC 2433 (QB), where injunctions had been refused pending planning appeals, there was the fact that these all concerned injunction… [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:17 pm by Mark Walsh
Smith of Jenner & Block, who argued and won Lawrence v. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 8:04 am by Eric Goldman
Chapman * Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:30 am
  Our guest blogger today is Henry Pietrkowski, a partner in Reed Smith's Chicago office. [read post]
8 Aug 2021, 8:17 am by Eric Goldman
Chapman * Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 8:58 am by Eric Goldman
Chapman * Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. [read post]