Search for: "ENGLAND v. STATE" Results 21 - 40 of 4,081
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Nov 2017, 8:30 am by ISOBELLE WILLIAMS
Today’s appeal, R (on the application of Paul Black) v Secretary of State for Justice, asks whether the Health Act 2006 applies by necessary implication to a prison administered by the Crown. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 6:46 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Additional Resources: Teens Seriously Injured in Car Crash, July 20, 2015, NECN More Blog Entries:Floyd-Tunnell v. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 12:04 am
Ltd and another v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1972 (Pat) (13 July 2021)Much of the expense of civil litigation in England and Wales arises from disclosure and inspection of documents. [read post]
7 May 2010, 2:31 am by traceydennis
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina Court of Appeal “An English Court had no jurisdiction to enforce a United States court judgment since there was no treaty between the two countries for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments; the appropriate way was to bring an action on the judgment in England to enforce it. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am by Peter Groves
In Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd, where the loss arose because there were no generic equivalents of the invalidly-patented drug, the Supreme Court held that the "dealing requirement" laid down in OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, which states that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, is a necessary element of the tort. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 5:45 am by Mark Graber
”During the eighteenth century, England developed a state bureaucracy. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 4:00 am by Steve McConnell
And in the only case arising from the New Jersey state court consolidated Aredia/Zometa litigation to be tried, Bessemer v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 1:06 pm
The opinion was written by Judge Rawlinson, with Judge Forrest and Senior District Judge England joining the opinion.Today, the en banc court disagrees, and holds that A.B. 5 was constitutionally validwas constitutionally valid. [read post]