Search for: "Goff v. Goff"
Results 141 - 160
of 184
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2017, 6:00 am
The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 6:00 am
The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 7:00 am
The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. [read post]
30 Mar 2007, 12:50 pm
(U.S. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 6:00 am
Prince is best known as the artist behind the Lenz v. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 6:53 am
In fact, it might be impossible to find anyone working in the field who has not either read some of his academic writings (or Lord Goff’s seminal speech in The Spiliada [1986] UKHL 10, which directly credits them) or had the privilege of attending one of his classes in Oxford or one of the other places he has visited over the years. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 10:25 am
The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 11:54 am
’” Morgan Asset Holding Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 6:00 am
The case, also known as Lenz v. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 6:00 am
The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. [read post]
8 May 2017, 6:00 am
Supreme Court in the Lenz v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 1:51 pm
It involves either an interference with the legal rights of an owner or a person with exclusive possession of land, including an interest in land such as an easement or a profit à prendre, or interference with the amenity of the land, that is to say the right to use and enjoy it, which is an inherent facet of a right of exclusive possession: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) AC 655 687G–688E (Lord Goff citing FH Newark, “The Boundaries of Nuisance” 65… [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 1:51 pm
It involves either an interference with the legal rights of an owner or a person with exclusive possession of land, including an interest in land such as an easement or a profit à prendre, or interference with the amenity of the land, that is to say the right to use and enjoy it, which is an inherent facet of a right of exclusive possession: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) AC 655 687G–688E (Lord Goff citing FH Newark, “The Boundaries of Nuisance” 65… [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 10:06 pm
There is a failure of consideration if B has not “rendered” to A what the advance was paid for (see Lord Goff’s speech in Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian). [read post]
20 May 2014, 5:04 am
It is actual reliance by the promisee, and the state of affairs so created, which answers the concern that equitable estoppel not be allowed to outflank Jorden v Money by dispensing with the need for consideration if a promise is to be enforceable as a contract. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 5:41 am
The decision in VTB Capital Inc. v. [read post]
12 May 2019, 4:36 pm
Ireland The Sunday Times reports that Goffs, the bloodstock sales company, has claimed in the High Court that it is being defamed by the part-owner of a horse that was sold in 2011. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 6:49 am
Goff, 4 So.3d 770, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 5:47 pm
Although the theory that a court merely declares pre-existing law has been described by no less an authority than Lord Browne-Wilkinson as a “fairy tale in which no one any longer believes”, it is clear, as Lord Goff noted (Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council), that retrospectivity of decisionmaking is inevitable in a system that is committed to the doctrine of precedent. [read post]
