Search for: "VIDAL V. STATE"
Results 101 - 120
of 255
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2021, 6:34 am
In relation to the first question, the Supreme Court said it was correctly held in the Court of Appeal decision in Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311 that section 13 of the DPA could not be construed as providing a general right to compensation for distress suffered as a result of a breach of the DPA “without contradicting the cl [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 3:29 am
This argument was founded on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Gulati v MGN, which concerned systematic phone hacking by journalists from the Mirror Group. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 7:00 am
Batalla Vidal, et al. court order. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 2:41 pm
The decision in Texas v. [read post]
21 Jan 2021, 4:36 pm
Alternatively, such proceedings may be brought before the courts of the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence, unless the controller or processor is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 2:23 pm
See Reinstatement of DACA Court Order Blog Post Batalla Vidal et al., v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 7:00 am
Batalla Vidal et al., v. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 4:28 pm
Batalla Vidal et al., v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 8:22 am
It was meant to retain effective state control of the non state sector will effectively devolving operational tasks (at the lowest levels of consumer goods and services) to individuals. [read post]
19 Aug 2020, 10:08 am
VIDAL, Appellant, v. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 7:58 am
Vidal, No. 18–589), and the District of Columbia (Trump v. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 1:34 pm
Vidal. [read post]
2 Jan 2020, 10:49 am
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:11 pm
In the same way that Collins is undermined by the subequent decisions in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2016] QB 1003, [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) and Case C–362/14 Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650; CJEU, 6 October 2015), so Murphy is undermined by the subsequent decisions in Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 October 2019) and Case… [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:08 pm
He gave Article 23 DPD a very narrow reading, contrary to CJEU decisions such as Case C–168/00 Leitner v TUI Deutschland GmbH [2002] ECR I–1631 (ECLI:EU:C:2002:163; ECJ, 12 March 2002), which held that compensation for “damage” must include both material and non-material damage, that is, both actual damage and distress (see also Case C-63/09 Walz v Clickair SA [2010] ECR I 4239 (ECLI:EU:C:2010:251; CJEU, 6 May 2010); Case… [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 2:17 pm
Vidal case out of New York City, one of several consolidated cases before the justices today. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 2:02 pm
NAACP and McAleenan v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am
Background Following the seminal case of Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311, this is the second significant piece of litigation arising from Google’s use of the so-called “Safari Workaround” in 2011-2012. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Ramos v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 11:00 am
NAACP and McAleenan v. [read post]
