Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 4,049
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2016, 1:09 pm
Lord v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 6:44 am
Dissenting in part, Judge Rovner warned that the majority’s holding would act to place “handcuffs on Title VII retaliation claims” and leave the “employers holding the keys” (Lord v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 2:31 am
There is an existing precedent from the English court in this respect: the case of Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Limited. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:20 am
These three paragraphs state cumulative conditions. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm
Notwithstanding the clear terms of section 33(1), after the commencement of the 2009 Act, courts either continued to apply the pre-Act line of authority commencing with the judgment of Lord Coleridge in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269, or at least to interpret section 33(1) through the lens of those cases. [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 3:41 pm
S Butt v London Borough of Hackney. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 7:10 am
One way of putting this is whether the skilled person “would”, rather than “could”, arrive at the claimed invention without inventive effort (mirroring the EPO test of T2/83), but Lord Justice Floyd (delivering the Court of Appeal decision with which Lord Justice Kitchin and Lord Justice David Richards agreed) stated that this dichotomy can be misleading, as it may bring in non-technical considerations that are not… [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 9:41 pm
The case for argument today is Georgia v. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 9:44 am
Applying the decision in Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 71 P & CR 309 Treacy J accepted that the reasoning provided by the Commissioner was both adequate and intelligible. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 3:30 am
I’m not saying Lord of the Flies, but just really nasty, bullies. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 3:30 am
I’m not saying Lord of the Flies, but just really nasty, bullies. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 3:55 pm
Ward v LB Haringey. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 4:00 am
In Bartos v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 2015 SC 690, at its own instance the court raised a question as to the proper approach to certain provisions in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act). [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 11:11 am
My Lord. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 8:17 am
The arguments Appellant The appellant argued that the Court of Justice (CJEU) decision in Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (C-423/04) demonstrated that the art 4 prohibition on gender discrimination extended to those who had acquired gender by later reassignment. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 8:17 am
The Secretary of State refused to allow this. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 4:03 am
Also of interest in this case is the court’s reference to Lord Sumption’s judgment in Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2013] UKSC 2, which stated that “as a general rule the court of the executing state is bound to take the statements and information in the warrant at face value. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 1:42 am
Lord Wilson stated in his judgment that stage one had been complied with, the oral explanation that the recall was a result of L’s mental health having deteriorated was sufficient to satisfy stage one of the process. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 2:34 pm
He provided a GP’s letter stating that he suffered from depression, was prescribed anti-depressants and was awaiting therapy. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 6:51 am
Lord Mance reiterated that there is no duty of care owed between litigants and Lord Reed urged caution against “the interpretation of law reports from the 16th to the 18th centuries”, stating that “the court must not lose sight of the fact that it is deciding the law for the 21st century. [read post]
