Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE" Results 181 - 200 of 7,282
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2016, 7:10 am
  As stated by Kitchin LJ in Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1234:"Whether a route has a reasonable or fair prospect of success will depend upon all the circumstances including an ability rationally to predict a successful outcome, how long the project may take, the extent to which the field is unexplored, the complexity or otherwise of any necessary experiments, whether such experiments can be performed by routine means and whether the… [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 9:17 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Of relevance to a recent trade secret case, captioned Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 6:00 am by Michael Risch
With the Supreme Court’s grant of cert in Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
In a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. [read post]
27 Apr 2013, 5:02 pm by INFORRM
The causes of action invoked by the Plaintiff are described by the judge as “diffuse, and imaginative” and they run to an astonishing thirty claims, including Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR; Section 6 of HRA, The Data Protection Act 1988,The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and a recent libel decision of the English Court of Appeal in Tamiz  v  Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68 which we’ve posted… [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 2:47 pm by David Smith
I am thinking here of Spencer v Taylor (which we analysed here), Charalambous v Ng, and now Edwards v Kumarasamy. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 7:10 am by All Language Alliance, Inc.
For instance, the English translation does not state that Berne has exclusive jurisdiction. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm by Wolfgang Demino
REPUBLICAN MULVANEY MONKEY-WRENCH GAMBIT MOVES TO DC COURT Below is the text of the complaint and request for instanter restraining order (TRO) filed by one of the  dueling directors against the other [conversion from pdf]Original in pdf may be view here  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEANDRA ENGLISH, Deputy Director and Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552,… [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 1:56 am by Jane Sarma and George Viopoulos
” The decision brings U.S. law into alignment with the long-standing position under English law, as established by Leeds Shipping Co. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 8:43 am
And now, here is a legal first, straight from the pen (well, keyboard) of our Mr Justice Arnold in joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA)/Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [2012] EWHC 3316 (Pat) on whether the English Courts have jurisdiction over issues of infringement of foreign-designated patents. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:05 am by Aileen McColgan, Matrix Chambers.
Extradition in the public interest would, however, generally be proportionate under Article 8(2) (Norris v Government of the United States of America (No.2) [2010] 2 AC 487). [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 5:13 am
In Aizkir Navigation Inc v Al Wathba National Insurance [2011] EWHC 3940 (Comm), the High Court considered a principle of contractual construction and held that a clause stating that claims "be settled in accordance with English Law and practice shall be so settled in Abu Dhabi (UAE)" amounted to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the United Arab Emirates (the UAE) and there was no overwhelming reason to displace that jurisdiction clause.The Claimant,… [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 4:56 pm by INFORRM
As for the competing Convention rights (the family’s Article 8 rights to privacy and the importance of free press reporting under Article 10), the judge relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in R(C) v Secretary of State for Justice ([2016] UKSC 2) where Lady Hale observed: “First, neither article has as such precedence over the other. [read post]