Search for: "Neuberger v. United States"
Results 61 - 80
of 125
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
The relationship between EU law and the municipal law of the United Kingdom seems to lend itself to allusions to water. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
On 18 June 2014 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 5:05 pm
On Wednesday 26 March 2014, the Supreme Court (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption, Carnwath and Toulson) gave judgment in the case of Kennedy v Charity Commission ([2014] UKSC 20). [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 1:34 am
This principle was famously laid down in the case of Sidhu v British Airways (where passengers could not sue at common law for harm resulting from their plane having been high jacked following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait), and subsequently applied by senior courts around the world, including notably the United States Supreme Court in El Al Israel Airlines v Tseng (though Justice Stevens there dissented). [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 4:19 pm
Marley v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm
Some months after an initial contact made in late 2012 Mr Greenwald met Edward Snowden, who provided him with encrypted data which had been stolen from the National Security Agency of the United States. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 4:10 pm
Mr Miller QC also highlighted the uncertainty as to exactly when a Defendant will be able to rely on an order for revocation in a damages assessment given that Lord Neuberger’s stated that a Defendant will only be able to rely on such an order “absent special factors”, without then specifying what those factors may be. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
Wider Implications The proceedings in Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook have already attracted significant attention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission; with the Secretary of State acting as a further intervener. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 4:33 am
The post Case Preview: Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 3:43 am
In Vestergaard Frandsen and others v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 10:22 am
[If you want some handy tips on how to speed-read all those comments, try the Wired How-To Wiki, here] In case you missed it, Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences, Inc UKSC 2012/0220 is not going on appeal to the United Kingdom's Supreme Court. [read post]
14 May 2013, 8:05 am
The only European authority on "staple commercial products" cited was a Patents County Court decision in Pavel v Sony Corporation where HHJ Ford stated that a "staple commercial product is a commodity or raw material". [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 2:02 pm
Lord Neuberger, delivering the judgment of the Court, stated that whether a party was 'making' something was a "a matter of fact and degree". [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 11:24 am
Travelling around in cyberspace, and covering as much ground as Kingsley, is Katfriend Miri Frankel who, having only just penned a guest post for PatLit on the SHIELD anti-troll draft bill in the United States, popped up in quite a different area of IP with "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Copyright Expiration Date", here. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:43 am
The Court of Appeal decision The Court of Appeal reviewed a number of authorities on the meaning of “house”, including Lake v Bennett [1970] 1 Q.B. 663, Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes [1982] A.C. 755, Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd [2008] 1 W.L.R. 289, (where the House of Lords held that, when deciding whether a building had been designed or adapted for living in, one is largely concerned with the physical state of the… [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 9:26 am
Written by Susan Neuberger Weller On July 6, 2012, in Lebewohl v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
But it’s the lawyers who are dominant in business in the United States*. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 8:50 am
Lord Neuberger in the Court of Appeal went as far as to state as follows. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 12:00 am
In In O’Halloran v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 21 the European Court of Human Rights held that a provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which required vehicle owners to identify the driver, did not involve an infringement of Article 6, even if the identification led to a prosecution. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 5:15 pm
Lord Neuberger in the Court of Appeal went as far as to state as follows. [read post]
