Search for: "London v. State" Results 1101 - 1120 of 3,589
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2023, 3:16 am by Matrix Law
The hearing will begin at 10:30am in Courtroom 1, London. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 4:27 am by Edith Roberts
At Opinio Juris, Heather Cohen looks at Jesner v. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 5:47 am
Thus the Case of the Week is Jordan v. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 12:50 am
The plaintiffs were companies incorporated in England and had their principal places of business in London. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 5:35 am by Ivo Emanuilov (KU Leuven)
The facts of the case On 21 November 2023, Sir Anthony Mann of the London High Court handed down a judgment in the case of Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] EWHC 2948 (Ch). [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am by NL
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 3:00 am by James Maxeiner
To the relief of many, last year in Turner v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 10:25 am by Steve Bainbridge
“The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the litigious environment are creating a more risk-averse culture in the United States,” one former senior investment banker stated. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 4:42 am by Jack Ballantyne
  With reference to judicial inconsistency on a point of disclosure in the judgment of Vernon v Bosley , Lord Neuberger then demonstrated that litigation best practice had in some areas been left in a “state of complete uncertainty”. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 5:25 am
The City of New London, several state passed regulation increasing the statutory compensation for eminent domain takings. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 2:49 pm by Giles Peaker
Shah v Croydon LBC [2013] EWHC 3657 (Admin) [Not on Bailii yet. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
Background The Claimant – described by the judge as a member of a small elite class of businessmen with a global reputation and a particular focus in London – had brought proceedings against the Defendants for misuse of private information and libel in respect of articles published online. [read post]