Search for: "Cox v. Cox" Results 1181 - 1200 of 1,598
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2012, 2:30 am by INFORRM
  The first, Gold v Cox ([2012] EWHC 272 (QB)) concerned the threatened publication of a book about Jacqueline Gold, the chief executive of Ann Summers. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:44 am by Amy Howe
  First up is Wittman v. [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 7:24 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The standard set by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Crits v. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 5:34 am
Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minnesota Supreme Court 1984).State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 9:24 pm
Jim Simons' offer to meet with Bishop Lawrence, I am afraid that based on her past conduct, especially in connection with Bishops Cox and Duncan, she cannot be trusted. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 12:45 am
No, says the European Court of Human Rights | BMG v Cox - when does an ISP lose its safe harbour protection? [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 7:28 am
| Beware of your old expert reports, as Henry Carr J allows hearsay expert evidence in Illumina v Ariosa | Still want to be a UPC judge? [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 5:30 am by INFORRM
Thus, in Cox v Turkey (20 May 2010), the Strasbourg Court held that Article 10 was engaged by the ban on the re-entry of a US woman who had expressed strong views on issues of Kurdish assimilation and the treatment of Armenians. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 8:40 am by TJ McIntyre
While the 2011 Act is of very wide application, it has particular significance for computer crime where it creates both duties to report certain types of crime and new police powers to require the handing over of passwords and decryption of files.Pearse Ryan and Claire O'Brien of Arthur Cox and Andy Harbison of Grant Thornton have produced a very good guide to the effect of the 2011 Act for the Society of Computers and Law (paywalled) and with their kind permission I'm glad to be able to… [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 2:27 am by David Lynn
Court of Appeals decision came out earlier this week in National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. [read post]