Search for: "Doe Defendants I through V" Results 9581 - 9600 of 12,274
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2011, 2:21 pm by Will Aitchison
Defendants’ initial memorandum in support cited to Ray v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 10:26 am
That is, before they embark on litigation to enforce their intellectual property rights (or defend themselves), the potential users of the Patents County Court system need to be able to make a prediction in advance as to their likely costs exposure.Subject to narrow exceptions, the PCC does not permit recovery of costs falling outside the scope of these discrete stages. [read post]
13 May 2011, 9:44 am by Orin Kerr
I disagree and therefore respectfully dissent.Thanks to reader Laura Victoria for the link. [read post]
12 May 2011, 5:06 pm by INFORRM
My analysis of 125 defamation cases of the ECtHR through the lens of the model has demonstrated that the reasoning of the ECtHR has undergone little to no changes after Chauvy v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 8:26 am by Gideon
The defendant in the present case contends that Orr controls the result here. [read post]
12 May 2011, 7:00 am
Thus the court went through the balancing of the policy factors I have discussed in previous "duty" cases on this blog. [read post]
12 May 2011, 5:54 am by INFORRM
The judgment, for instance, states that the evidence “showed that the First Defendant, probably through her partner, had been negotiating with a newspaper group to sell intimate photographs and other information obtained in circumstances that were clearly private and in respect of which she owed the Claimant a duty of confidence”. [read post]
12 May 2011, 12:43 am by Lara
I recently met a gentleman with a quite a dilemma on his hands. [read post]