Search for: "People v. Fair" Results 1161 - 1180 of 10,531
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2010, 6:01 am by charonqc
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT The elements of the defence of fair comment had been set out by Lord Nicholls in the Hong Kong case of Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng [2001] EMLR 777. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 12:37 am by INFORRM
The ‘zonal argument’ occasionally advanced by tabloid defendants – that an expose is ‘fair game’ because the claimant placed certain elements of information in the public domain – has been long-discredited in English misuse of private information law (McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers [2021] EWHC 273 [86]). [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 2:48 am by Emma Cross
Background The case concerns Sark, an island of 600 people, which is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey; a Crown Dependency. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 1:32 am
Insurers have been successful in their Katrina appeals to the Fifth Circuit, and given the appellate court's analysis in two big cases -- Leonard v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Initial interest confusion won’t defeat nominative fair use without “more indicia of endorsement” than alleged here, as in Abdul-Jabar v. [read post]
20 May 2007, 5:14 pm
Education Station Day Care Center Inc. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 11:44 pm
Like a fair number of other people, I'm completely captivated by Bryan Garner's videotaped interviews with Supreme Court justices on effective brief-writing. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 5:03 pm by Colin O'Keefe
What did people do before they could broadcast dispirited song lyrics to hundreds of acquaintances? [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 12:55 pm by Michael Grossman
While the warrant did provide for inspection of areas “not limited to the anal cavity,” that should not be interpreted to mean that everything is fair game. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 10:23 pm
  Or at least there is a good basis for arguing that the use of Beckham's name is a fair use. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 12:05 pm
 As a result, the people of Alameda County benefit from the program, but the cost of that program is borne almost entirely by people outside of Alameda County (in the form of higher prices).That doesn't seem entirely fair, does it? [read post]