Search for: "People v. Jones (1998)" Results 121 - 140 of 182
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2011, 3:48 pm
I expect Student Loans to be the scourge of this Generation; I routinely talk to wonderful people who have gigantic student loans, and have no chance of getting them paid any time during this depression. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am by INFORRM
“Conventional” qualified privilege In Clift v Slough Borough Council [2011] EMLR 13, the Court of Appeal considered how the Human Rights Act 1998 affected a local authority’s defence of qualified privilege in a defamation case. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:00 am by INFORRM
In addition to the “threshold of seriousness”, the court can be asked to decide whether there is a “real and substantial tort” and, if there is not, to strike the claim out as an abuse: Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 8:46 am by Brad Wendel
The ABA Journal is now reporting on a story that had been first reported in Mother Jones. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 1:04 am by Chris Carey
 Corporation filings show that Jones is treasurer of Wilmark of Nevada. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 2:59 am
  In May, 2010, wedding food also hospitalized at least one hundred people in Northern India. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 8:24 am by Adam Wagner
As Lord Woolf said in the case of Jones v Warwick, the principle that evidence can be obtained in whichever way one likes, whether illegally or not, must be at least concerning to society as a whole: While this approach will help to achieve justice in a particular case, it will do nothing to promote the observance of the law by those engaged or about to be engaged in legal proceedings. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:20 pm by carie
” Jeffrey Fisher, who clerked for Stevens in the 1998-99 term and is now a professor at Stanford, says, “The reason he very rarely speaks first is that he really listens to his colleagues and tries to figure out what is on their minds and tries to figure out what the swing votes care about in the case. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 7:20 am by INFORRM
It is also in accordance with the decision of Sharp J in Ecclestone with which I respectfully agree; ii) It is required by the development of the law recognised in Jameel (Youssef) v Dow Jones as arising from the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998: regard for Art 10 and the principle of proportionality both require it. [89] Applying this analysis to the facts of the case, the judge held that the allegation complained of was not capable of being a personal libel and, if… [read post]