Search for: "Ladd v. Ladd" Results 1 - 20 of 70
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Aug 2008, 9:37 am
Lifely v Lifely [2008] EWCA Civ 904; [2008] WLR (D) 280 “Where fresh evidence had arguably been wrongfully obtained considerations beyond the classical requirements under the Ladd v Marshall test might be appropriate when the court was considering whether such evidence should be admitted. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 11:30 am
SAG president Alan Rosenberg and three other Membership First hardliners (1st VP Anne-Marie Johnson and board members Diane Ladd and Kent McCord) filed their reply brief earlier this week.I'm told there will be oral argument (unscheduled as yet). [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 7:46 am by Daniel Schwartz
The Standard of Review in ERISA Benefit Denials: Metropolitan v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 3:28 pm
If you want to review the legal documents in the lawsuit filed by Screen Actors Guild President Alan Rosenberg, Guild 1st VP Anne-Marie Johnson, and board members Kent McCord and Diane Ladd against SAG, they are posted here. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 3:24 pm by NL
The appellant argued that the expert's recent report constituted new evidence that would satisfy the test for new evidence post-judgement set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, in that: i) the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial ii) the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case iii) the evidence was credible (though it need not be incontrovertible). [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 3:24 pm by NL
The appellant argued that the expert's recent report constituted new evidence that would satisfy the test for new evidence post-judgement set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, in that: i) the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial ii) the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case iii) the evidence was credible (though it need not be incontrovertible). [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 2:56 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The proceedings were stayed largely because Mr Gohil charged with serious money-laundering and convicted and sentenced to prison in 2011, but finally in Sep 2012 Moylan J decided to set aside the order on the basis that there had been material non-disclosure, if Mr Gohil had made full disclosure the outcome would have been different, and because Mrs Gohil had satisfied the evidence criteria is Ladd v Marshall. [read post]