Search for: "Doe v. Phillips" Results 141 - 160 of 1,843
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jun 2012, 3:35 am by Daniel West
This was an opinion supported by Lady Hale (para 168): ‘The strength of a claimant’s subjective belief is not a sensible basis for deciding who does, and who does not, have an absolute right to pursue his action.’ [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:35 am by Daniel West
This was an opinion supported by Lady Hale (para 168): ‘The strength of a claimant’s subjective belief is not a sensible basis for deciding who does, and who does not, have an absolute right to pursue his action. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:41 am by Adam Wagner
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2010] UKSC 29 – Read judgment The Supreme Court has ruled by a 6-3 majority that the Human Rights Act does not apply on the battlefield and soldiers are not automatically entitled to inquests arising from deaths in foreign conflicts. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 2:00 pm by Kedar S. Bhatia
As far as I can tell, Phillips does not appear as the counsel of record on any parties’ briefs for cases that will be argued this Term, suggesting he may not make any appearances at all. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:26 am by INFORRM
The Appeal The “Times” does not, on this appeal, seek to challenge the fundamental parameters of the “responsible publication” defence – as clarified in Jameel. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 2:29 am by Catherine Rose
  Catherine is a paralegal at David Phillips & Partners, working in criminal defence. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  It is found in Delphi Healthcare PLLC v Petrella Phillips LLP   2018 NY Slip Op 01012  Decided on February 9, 2018  Appellate Division, Fourth Department. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 4:15 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Phillips v Murtha 2023 NY Slip Op 01767 Decided on April 04, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department demonstrates that several recurring attorney representation scenarios in wills and estates legal malpractice claims will fail for lack of standing. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 11:59 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Rambus II, 753 F.3d at 1256; seealso Facebook, Inc. v. [read post]