Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jan 2011, 10:23 am
A mention in this regard may also be made of the developments in the United States and United Kingdom where this right has had [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:25 pm
The authors state: Failure to employ fair use affirmatively and consistently impairs the accomplishment of the academic and research libraries’ mission. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 3:34 am
The People) Viacom – Viacom, FAPL and Amici File briefs in Viacom v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 11:33 am
According to their website, the American Cheese Society (ACS) shares resources to help producers adequately prepare for audits and inspections and work collaboratively with state regulators and the FDA. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:01 am
The FreeCycle Network (IPBiz) (IP Spotlight) District Court E D North Carolina grants defendant summary judgment on federal and state law trade mark infringement claims in The Daniel Group v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 4:30 am
See Maestas v. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 10:00 pm
And it is not an impasse which can be resolved by the so-called “national sovereignty clause” any more than it has been settled by the clash of titans in the series of cases dealing with this point, directly or indirectly – Factortame ((No 1) [1990] 2 AC 85; Factortame (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603), Thoburn v Sunderland City Council[2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) , Jackson v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 4:14 am
Highlights this week included: US: Prosecutors dismiss Xbox-modding case mid-trial: USA v Crippen (ArsTechnica) (Michael Geist) (1709 Blog) CAFC: Section 101 and process claims: Research Corp. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:00 am
The appellant derived this “necessary implication” test from the context of human rights or the principle of legality referred to in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 and R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563, where the question was whether section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 overrode legal professional privilege, a… [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 4:48 am
Noting the very high threshold for review imposed by the Wednesbury test (see criticisms of this by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26,[2001] 2 AC 532 and the Strasbourg Court in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493, para. 138) the Committee considered that the application of a “proportionality principle” by the courts in E&W could provide an adequate… [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 2:48 pm
I shall provide two important hints.Hint #1:The source is one of the following:- Access Copyright (“AC”)- Association of Universities and Colleges Canada (“AUCC”)- Canadian Association of Research Libraries ("CARL")- Council of Ministers of Education Canada ("CMEC")Hint #2:The landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with fair dealing, namely CCH. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am
Medinol Limited (EPLAW) EWHC (Pat): Costs order knocks spots off pimple patent: Select Healthcare v Cromptons (PatLit) EWPCC: ‘User’ basis available for assessment of trade mark damages: National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Silveria (t/a C S Movers) (IP finance) Do it by the book: case management and questions for reference: Westwood v Knight; SAS Institute v World Programming (IPKat) EWCA finds Grimme’s agricultural machinery patent… [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm
With human health at the apex of this system, the assessment of the measures adopted to secure any of these aims is not, as Lord Steyn suggested in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532, a ”one size fits all” test. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm
After all, as he House of Lords observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, freedom of expression is a right without “an effective rule of law is not possible”. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 3:00 am
Although the litigation failed to stop the book, it did develop the law of confidentiality and aid the development of the protection of privacy, even before the Human Rights Act (see Attorney General v Observer [1990] 1 AC 109). [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 12:21 am
Lord Phillips also re-named the defence as “honest comment” (as opposed to Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, which favoured “honest opinion” [35]) and called on the Law Commission to consider and review the present state of the defence. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm
After all, as he House of Lords observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, freedom of expression is a right without “an effective rule of law is not possible”. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 4:35 pm
Lord Phillips also re-named the defence as “honest comment” (as opposed to Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, which favoured “honest opinion” [35]) and called on the Law Commission to consider and review the present state of the defence. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:05 am
Indeed, it agreed to renew the standard pre CCH v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 5:37 pm
For reasons that are far from apparent, AUCC negotiated renewed arrangements following CCH v. [read post]
