Search for: "Lester v. Lester" Results 161 - 180 of 463
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Aug 2011, 9:21 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Cichowski, Civil Society and the European Court of Human RightsAnthony Lester, The European Court of Human Rights after 50 YearsRobert Harmsen, The Reform of the Convention System: Institutional Restructuring and the (Geo-)Politics of Human RightsStéphanie Hennette-Vauchez, Constitutional v. [read post]
23 Nov 2013, 4:21 am by Walter Olson
William Watson, Cato, more, yet more, related] Courts come down hard on copyright troll Prenda Law [Popehat] Annals of patent trollery: New York Times et al rout Helferich [EFF, Liquid Litigation BLLawg] Monolithic Power Systems v. 02 Micros [IP for the Little Guy] Resistance by Newegg, RackSpace, Hyundai, etc. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 3:22 am by Walter Olson
Now organized litigation lobby is intent on taking that down, and Obama administration has helped with steps in labor law, consumer finance, and nursing-home care [James Copland, Manhattan Institute, related op-ed] SCOTUS should grant certiorari to clarify lawyers’ obligation to clients in class settlement, argues Lester Brickman [amicus brief courtesy SCOTUSBlog; earlier on Blackman v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 9:04 am by INFORRM
So too, there is the very real potential for trivial claims to be struck under Dow Jones & Co Inc v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75, [2005] QB 946 for abuse of process. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Good morning and thank you, [Columbia Law School] Dean [Gillian] Lester, for the introduction. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
Lord Lester’s Libel reform bill was proposed and then withdrawn on assurances from the coalition government that they would introduce a consultation and new bill. [read post]
12 Nov 2024, 7:28 am by Joseph L. Hyde
” Roscoe Pound, Introduction to Lester Bernhardt Orfield, Criminal Appeals in America, 3, 10 (1939). [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 2:01 am by INFORRM
See also Lord Lester’s Bill, clause 12. (2) Rule out some claimants? [read post]