Search for: "MATTER OF J C B" Results 1001 - 1020 of 3,065
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2018, 7:54 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Justice Gomery adopted the same elements of the tort as the previous public disclosure of private facts case, and found the ex-boyfriend to be liable: (a) the defendant publicized an aspect of the plaintiff’s private life; (b) the plaintiff did not consent to the publication; (c) The matter publicized or its publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (d) The publication was not of legitimate concern to the public. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 1:00 am by Jan von Hein
In favour of the consumer client, the consumer protection rules of international procedural law apply under the territorial-situational requirements of Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c Brussels I Regulation 2001 / Art. 17 sec. 1 lit. c Brussels Ibis Regulation 2015 / Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c Lugano Convention 2007. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 3:32 pm by Wolfgang Demino
("TERI"), a non-profit institution, or (b) this is a qualified education loan as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 9:45 pm by Andrew Hudson
It does not matter where the trade mark had been applied to, or in relation to, the relevant goods. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 4:33 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  Judges derive insider trading violations from Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (together known as the “SEC’s antifraud provisions”), and are a “catchall” aimed at fraud, requiring some sort of “device, scheme or artifice to defraud” or some action, which would otherwise “operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 1:45 pm by Giles Peaker
Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo (2018) EWHC 2296 (QB) (Not on Bailii for some reason. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 11:43 am
The Court of Appeal agreed with Birss J that the "Non-discrimination" aspect of FRAND was not hard-edged. [read post]
8 Oct 2018, 6:22 am
§ l 125(a); Federal Trademark Dilution, ex U.S.C. 1125(c); Deceptive Acts and Practices, in violation of New York General Business Law §349;Trademark Dilution, ex New York General Business Law §360-L; common law unfair competition; and unjust enrichment.Feyoncé's #DRUNKINLOVE vestThe first roundThe plaintiffs requested the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to issue partial summary judgment in their favour and issue… [read post]
7 Oct 2018, 8:59 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
The direction that he referred to was of course the controversial Belobaba decision, but his rationale outside of this was legally suspect, claiming that the privilege of the legislature was violated because the legislature has the sole authority to make determinations of matters under s. 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 11:08 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
(j) Besides, the absence of a definition of when the metering started in the process of claim 1 further added to the lack of clarity of the claimed subject matter.[...]XIV. [read post]