Search for: "Coco v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 50
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2020, 10:21 am
The three-part test for breach of confidence set out in the English case of "Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd" [1969] RPC 41 is well known to common-law practitioners. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 8:33 am
Read the opinion The post DAVID BOYD, ET UX. v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 10:56 am
What if Coco Chanel had been the plaintiff in Smith v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 9:34 pm
This state ruling stands in contrast to the federal rule articulated in Federal Aviation Administration v. [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 4:45 am
This was based on the Australian case of of Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Limited v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1990) 22 FCR 73. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 6:49 pm
Pollack, The Road Not Taken: Comparative International Judicial Dissent International DecisionsGeir Ulfstein, Qatar v. [read post]
26 Oct 2008, 3:26 am
See also Rogers v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 4:30 am
Harris v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 4:05 pm
(a) The plaintiffs sell unpalatable food at Coco Roco. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 12:30 am
• The Court observed that Karum had chosen to sue FPF for breach of confidence in equity and had itself expressly cited the three-step test established in the 1969 English case of Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) [noted here] which had been long adopted by New Zealand courts. [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 11:15 am
Curtis Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm
In relation to breach of confidence, Mr Justice Newey considered the elements of the claim set out in Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41, that: The information must have the necessary quality of confidence about it; The information must be imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence; and There must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 7:45 am
At the time, neither party suggested that lack of a broker’s license was the reason for terminating the agreement nor that it was stated as the reason; Coco Beach first alleged that the contract was illegal after the fact, in its answer to the director’s complaint. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 7:35 pm
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 7:17 am
Vasquez, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 6:13 am
Wang (Harvard Business School), on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 Tags: Airgas v. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Dorpan, S.L. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Dorpan, S.L. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Dorpan, S.L. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 5:44 am
Cull in the Cocos. [read post]
