Search for: "Hale v. Harm"
Results 121 - 140
of 226
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2015, 3:57 pm
Lady Hale accepts the validity of these criticisms and finds (para.36) that WCC gave no serious consideration to its obligations in Ms N’s case. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 2:25 pm
However, and unfortunately for Mr A-L, while Baroness Hale, and indeed others, would have remitted the case for trial, there had been supervening events. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 2:41 pm
This was followed shortly after by Glos CC v AB on March 2nd. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 4:57 am
Lady Hale supported Lord Kerr’s analysis. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 9:12 pm
Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (1959); United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 2:30 am
He also stated that the general rule that there is no duty to protect others from third party harm is not appropriate for members of a force whose duty it is to provide protection. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 1:49 am
Lords Neuberger, Clarke, Wilson, Toulson and Lady Hale will hear the appeal. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 4:23 pm
See for example Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, pa 132, where Baroness Hale sums it up: “The 1998 Act does not create any new cause of action between private persons. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 7:46 pm
Hale v Ward County, 848 N.W. 2d 245 (ND 6/24/2014)Filed under: Current Caselaw, Nuisance [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:50 am
Hale v Ward County, 848 N.W. 2d 245 (ND 6/24/2014) The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20110171.htm Filed under: Current Caselaw, Nuisance Tagged: gun range [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 2:08 pm
Tesla is unilaterally disarming its patents because patents are harming the industry’s growth. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
Lord Reed, with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agreed, held that the scheme did fall foul of the principle of legality. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 1:32 am
Lord Reed, with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agreed, held that the scheme did fall foul of the principle of legality. [read post]
21 May 2014, 10:31 am
The ECtHR Chamber has delivered its decision in McDonald v UK. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 9:38 am
It’s not clear how customers are harmed by drinking apple juice instead. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 7:31 am
(citing Hale v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 7:31 am
(citing Hale v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 11:09 am
” These exchanges occurred Wednesday as the Court heard the case of Wood v. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 1:34 am
This principle was famously laid down in the case of Sidhu v British Airways (where passengers could not sue at common law for harm resulting from their plane having been high jacked following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait), and subsequently applied by senior courts around the world, including notably the United States Supreme Court in El Al Israel Airlines v Tseng (though Justice Stevens there dissented). [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:11 am
Under Arts 17 and 29 of the Convention, damages can only be awarded for harm to passengers in cases of death or bodily injury. [read post]
