Search for: "Matter of Smith v Smith" Results 1601 - 1620 of 4,656
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Its reasoning for so holding is entirely consistent with the approach to section 60(2) laid down by the Court of Appeal in this country in Grimme v Scott and KCI v Smith & Nephew (see my previous judgment at [102]).Fourthly, the Court took into account (at [4.34]-[4.36]) the fact that Sun had not taken steps which it could have taken, but this does not appear to have been critical to its reasoning. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 4:46 am by SHG
Brown University Decision Dear Judge Smith, I implore to review your interpretation of John Doe v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 3:36 pm
In these circumstances and absent an error of principle, an appellate court will be very cautious in differing from the judge's evaluation: see SmithKline Beecham's Patent [2006] RPC 323 at [38] per Lord Hoffmann; Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1715 at [24] to [25] per Jacob LJ" 3. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 1:47 am
However, by a majority (Dame Janet Smith dissenting) the Court held that the claimant could not rely on the FAA because the head of damage under German law, the loss of the right to maintenance, did not correspond to compensation for loss of dependency, the head of damage under English law. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 4:24 am
R.R., 201 AD2d 528; Smith v Pergament Enters., of S.I., 271 AD2d 870, 870-871). [read post]