Search for: "Hall v. PROCESS INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROL"
Results 1 - 20
of 59
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2017, 8:03 am
Arizona v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 1:35 pm
Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, and Grant v. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 12:14 am
As to individuation, the Court applied the approach taken in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:07 pm
In Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) [105], the Court of Appeal held that, having regard to Article 23, “compensation would be recoverable under section 13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of anyof the requirements” of the Data Protection Acts (emphasis in original). [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 10:15 pm
Parallel Networks v. [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 7:39 pm
Judging is a process of narrative transmogrification: courts hear the stories of litigants and transform them into something juridically digestible. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 1:49 am
However, such an approach would have potentially been problematic as, unlike in Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA 311 (where the Court of Appeal disapplied section 13(2) of the DPA), there was no real discrepancy between the EU parent legislation (Directive 95/46/EC/the Data Protection Directive) and the domestic legislation. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 8:02 am
Prognostications will include possible Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit's 6-4 en banc decision in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 9:29 am
Arizona v. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm
The data protection principles were also central to the way in which the much more recent case of GC et. al. v CNIL assessed the processing of past criminal proceedings. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 8:36 am
County of Los Angeles and Estrada v. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 11:02 am
County of Los Angeles and Estrada v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 10:25 am
In 2003, in Lawrence v. [read post]
18 Apr 2023, 2:40 am
On the other hand, Mr Justice Saini found that the purposes of processing (cf. art. 23(2)(a)), the exemption’s scope (cf. 23(2)(c)) and the specification of controller (cf. 23(2)(e)) were sufficiently detailed and finally that it was not necessary to specify storage periods (cf. 23(2)(g)) as there was no attempt under the exemption to extend such periods beyond what would otherwise be applicable. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 11:31 am
We also need to defend the Alice v. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 3:44 pm
Justice Rothstein stated as follows in the CBC v. [read post]
21 Sep 2013, 2:49 pm
This is not to suggest the odd formalism of Lochner v. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 1:12 pm
It will strike some as alarmist that a religio-political struggle to control the instruments of government could tear a republic apart. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am
Obtaining study protocols, and in some instances, underlying data, are necessary for due process in the gatekeeping process. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 5:31 am
The U.N. secretary-general relied—as the depositary of the Rome Statute and according to existing practice (Chapter V)—on determinations made by the U.N. [read post]
