Search for: "England v. Medical Examiners" Results 61 - 80 of 138
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
  It provides another stark reminder of the importance of the way in which experts’ reports are prepared in patent litigation in England. [read post]
12 Sep 2021, 11:59 am by Giles Peaker
There should be signed witness statements in support and there may be cross examination on the evidence. [read post]
31 Mar 2021, 10:33 am by Daniel Jin
 It is therefore possible that remedies that otherwise might be available in a home court will not be capable of being the subject of an order in England. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 11:37 am by Andrew Lustigman
Furthermore, the Court found that the statute did not permissibly advance Vermont's goals of lowering the costs of medical services and promoting public health. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am by chief
" This was endorsed by the Children's Commissioner for England before the Court of Appeal in this case. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am by chief
" This was endorsed by the Children's Commissioner for England before the Court of Appeal in this case. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 10:14 am by David Kimball-Stanley
This post will examine the three opinions and consider their implications. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 12:30 pm by Amy Howe
  The medical examiner concluded that the death was accidental, and the county attorney declined to file criminal charges, but Young’s brother, on behalf of his estate, filed a lawsuit against the officers – who were not Indian – in state court. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 6:16 pm
The now-defunct Exchequer Court examined the issue back in 1964, in Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.) v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 12:15 am
It's Shanks v Unilever Plc & Others [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat), a Patents Court for England and Wales ruling of the indefatigable Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
8 Aug 2015, 5:08 pm by Giles Peaker
Following R (Jakimaviciute) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 1438 [our report] and Alemi, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council [2015] EWHC 1765 (Admin) [our report], it was not permissible to set qualifying [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 12:39 pm
In a complex medical negligence case, Cojocaru v. [read post]
29 May 2019, 12:22 pm
  Thus on the basis of the findings of fact and the law, the judge didn't need to go on to examine Edwards' irreparable harm. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Google will argue, as it did successfully in England in Metropolitan Schools v Google ([2009] EWHC 1765 (QB) (16 July 2009)), that its services as a search engine are passive in nature and therefore within the “mere conduit” definition. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 4:45 am by Lucy Reed
So, I shall be printing out and carrying inside my red book a copy of s13, which provides (as well as directly amending s38(6) of the CA 1989) that : Control of expert evidence, and of assessments, in children proceedings (1)A person may not without the permission of the court instruct a person to provide expert evidence for use in children proceedings. (2)Where in contravention of subsection (1) a person is instructed to provide expert evidence, evidence resulting from the instructions is… [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 5:46 pm by Admin
The process is governed by the New York State Board of Law Examiners. [read post]