Search for: "Hogans v. Charter Communications, Inc."
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm
The Court of Appeal decision in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311(27 March 2015) (Dyson MR and Sharp LJ in a joint judgment; McFarlane LJ concurring), affirming the judgment of Tugendhat J (at[2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)), is a very important decision on damages for invasion of privacy, and it raises significant questions about the correctness of Feeney J’s reasoning in the earlier Irish case of Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137 (14 March… [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 5:05 pm
Among them: assertions that Hogan filed the lawsuit to hide racist comments made on video, that the woman who Hogan had sex with knew it was being filmed, and that Hogan participated in an FBI investigation and sting because he was being extorted. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 7:08 am
(4) In the High Court, Hogan J. said that much had changed since 2000, including for example the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:07 pm
And in Sullivan v Boylan [2013] IEHC 104 (12 March 2013) Hogan J awarded €15,000 in general damages, and €7,500 in exemplary damages, for infringement of the plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 3:25 pm
In Schrems v. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 8:18 pm
(Schnatter v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:00 am
In finding that the government’s decision constituted discrimination, Justice La Forest for the Court noted: In order to receive the same quality of care, deaf persons must bear the burden of paying for the means to communicate with their health care providers, despite the fact that the system is intended to make ability to pay irrelevant … Once it is accepted that effective communication is an indispensable component of the delivery of medical services, it becomes… [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 5:01 am
Charter Communications; and (2) some clarification on loss causation as articulated by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
