Search for: "London v. State" Results 1301 - 1320 of 4,150
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2017, 5:01 am by Jordan Gold
Reasonable expectations of privacy in voyeurism cases under the Canadian Criminal Code: London’s case of R. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 6:09 am
Posted by Ron Kaniel, University of Rochester Simon Business School, on Monday, October 2, 2017 Tags: Accounting, Agency costs, Asset management, Bonuses, Fund performance, Incentives, Institutional Investors, International governance, Management, Mutual funds, Pay for performance, Sweden Delaware’s Loss of Top Spot for Lawsuit Climate Posted by Ning Chiu, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, on Monday, October 2, 2017 … [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 11:44 pm by Tessa Shepperson
London Borough of Camden v Foxtons Limited: [2017] The facts The London Borough of Camden (Camden) – one of the few Councils to actively pursue letting agents and seek to enforce the legislation (and good for them for doing it) were unhappy with Foxtons description of their fees as an ‘Administration Fee’ and proceeded to fine them. [read post]
1 Oct 2017, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
Max Hill v Mail on Sunday,  A Man v The Gazette (Paisley) Ward v Mail on Sunday. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 9:34 pm by Bernie Burk
  Cobb, who recently resigned his partnership in the prominent Washington-London law firm Hogan Lovells (formerly Hogan & Hartson) to accept the engagement representing the President, reportedly sounded off to Dowd about some recent developments with sufficient enthusiasm to be overheard by a Times reporter who happened to be eating at a table nearby. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 4:27 am by Edith Roberts
At Opinio Juris, Heather Cohen looks at Jesner v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 2:33 pm by Sever | Storey
Private developments – Since the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 11:53 am by Robert L. Wallan
That was the case in the coverage action between football helmet manufacturer Riddell and its liability insurers, which is pending in California state court, where certain London Market Insurers tried to require the production of extensive discovery before that substantially identical production took place in the underlying product liability action. [read post]