Search for: "McNamara v McNamara"
Results 121 - 140
of 208
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2012, 3:22 am
– Ed) Tods Murray’s Lexcel award comes amid a crop of other similar lapel pins & certificates handed out to solicitors recently, as part of a somewhat obvious desperate attempt by both Scottish & English industry regulators to drum up business for ailing law firms which have become infamous for battles with their clients such as the Tods Murray v Arakin where pensioner Mr McNamara has been appealing a ruling by law firm favourite judge Lord Woolman he must pay… [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 6:00 am
See LaForest v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 11:55 am
Andrew McNamara’s 16 year battle against a law firm may have been shortened considerably by talking McKenzie Friend reform. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 11:39 am
" An earlier report on the case can be read HERE and more on the history of Arakin Ltd’s dispute with Tods Murray can be found at a website on the case, here : Tods Murray v Arakin [read post]
24 Jun 2012, 8:00 pm
By Jaclyn McNamara and Marisa Victor Your employees have access to all kinds of sensitive company information. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 4:32 am
The case of Tods Murray v Arakin and Mr McNamara’s position as a “Vexatious Litigant” featured in the Sunday Herald : A-courting we will go ... [read post]
21 May 2012, 1:18 am
This response naturally troubled Lawrence McNamara, who wrote an article explaining his view in the Guardian this week. [read post]
14 May 2012, 4:33 am
Lawrence McNamara, who runs the ESRC-funded Law, Terrorism and the Right to Know project at the University of Reading, has raised the issue of employment tribunals and closed proceedings, in light of the forthcoming J&S Bill. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 3:53 pm
(represented by Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C.). [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 7:00 am
Facebook's News Feed Patent, US 7,827,208 More and more companies involved in patent litigation appear to be embracing the concept of “mutually assured destruction” or the “MAD doctrine” made famous by Robert McNamara during the Kennedy Administration by asserting their own patents in response to accusations of patent infringement. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 2:10 pm
Dr Lawrence McNamara at the University of Reading here presents a list of educated guesses as to what these cases could be. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am
Mr Gervase Duffield v The Independent, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Ms Hayley Quinn v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mr Alex Scott v The Times, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mr Alex Scott and Mr James Elliott v The Sun, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mrs Jane Clarke v Northwich Guardian, Clause 5, 01/02/2012; Mr Peter Vince-Lindsay v Daily Mail, Clause 1 01/02/2012. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 5:23 pm
Reprieve is calling for three major changes to the paper: The proposed ban on Norwich Pharmacal applications must be dropped, to ensure that any Government involvement in wrongdoing remains reviewable by a court In civil cases, the current system of Public Interest Immunity (PII) is very effective and does not need to be changed Where special advocates are used, they must be allowed to take instructions from their client to ensure a fair and balanced trial • The Intelligence and… [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 11:02 pm
Gibbs write that a recent Florida federal district court ruling in United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 1:53 pm
Chairman of the NORD Board of Directors and Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 4:00 am
It happened again last week in Compere v. [read post]
1 Oct 2011, 2:56 am
So was McNamara. [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 2:15 pm
Capital One has been sued for this very same thing several times in the last two years: McNamara v. [read post]
10 Sep 2011, 3:45 am
Lawrence McNamara (Reading) followed with his paper on terrorism and disclosure obligations, considering section 38B Terrorism Act and the various laws that preceded it. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 7:12 am
As we recently reported, the Proposed PDUFA V Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures for Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017 includes an initiative, styled as “Advancing Development of Drugs for Rare Diseases,” that would require FDA to, among other things, “develop and implement staff training related to development, review, and approval of drugs for rare diseases. [read post]
