Search for: "Ladd v. Ladd"
Results 1 - 20
of 80
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
In relation to the evidence, Arnold LJ found that Neo’s application failed on the first criterion set out in Ladd v Marshall. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 12:30 pm
[Wanted posters, vague and threatening letters, and dragging a 75-pound dummy.] [read post]
29 Jan 2022, 11:56 am
Robinson v. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 8:12 am
The UT admitted new evidence, including a letter refunding the licence fee on the other property which post dated the FTT decision, on Ladd v Marshall principles. [read post]
21 Aug 2020, 7:21 am
But, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently reversed (Ladd v. [read post]
19 Jan 2020, 10:40 am
Hence the grant of the licence in August 2018 This evidence was accepted by the UT on the Ladd v Marshall principles. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am
Appellate Division, First Department In proceeding to establish standing to assert parental rights in seeking visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70, the court has the discretion to direct “more monied” party to pay the other party’s counsel fee In Kelly G v Circe H, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2019 WL 6869009 (1stDept.,2019), the Appellate Division held, as a matter of first impression for the… [read post]
20 Oct 2019, 1:27 pm
Again, it falls at the first of the Ladd v Marshall fences. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 8:01 am
In Powell v Dacorum BC [2019] EWCA Civ 29 and Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 24 (QB), the question of the effect of the public sector equality duty under s. 149, Equality Act 2010, on possession proceedings where there had been drugs problems at the property was in issue. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 8:42 am
The FRAND element cannot be considered separately for the purpose of the forum conveniens analysis.Relevance of the new evidenceAlthough the new evidence in relation to the Chinese Court Guidelines would be admissible under the first Ladd v Marshall test (couldn't have been submitted at first instance trial) it did not meet the second criteria of having an influence on the outcome of the case. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 7:15 am
Sales LJ was unconvinced that the criteria set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 – intended to reflect the balance of justice in relation to applications to admit fresh evidence – had not been satisfied and KV was unable to demonstrate that evidence such as Dr Cohen’s report could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use earlier. [read post]
21 Oct 2018, 2:43 pm
So, the letter did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria for new evidence on appeal. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 7:25 am
Bell v. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 2:30 pm
I think of my executed client, Robert Ladd. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 11:58 pm
Ladd v Marshall [1954 EWCA Civ 1; MMI Research v Cellxion [2012] EWCA Civ 7).Brian also reminded the audience of the three categories of amendments recognised by Jacob LJ in Nikken v Pioneer [2005] EWCA Civ 906:(a) before a trial; (b) after trial, at which certain claims have been held valid but other claims held invalid, the patentee simply wishing to delete the invalid claims (I would include here also the case where the patentee wishes to re-write the claims so… [read post]
4 Dec 2016, 10:58 am
A recent case, Matter of Ladd v Krupp, 136 A.D.3d 1391 (4th Dept. 2016) decide in the fourth department has highlighted this disparity. [read post]
2 May 2016, 1:11 pm
Ladd, supra. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 6:50 am
’ Ladd v. [read post]
19 Nov 2015, 1:00 am
Any consideration of whether fresh evidence should be admitted (the Ladd v Marshall test) can only be within the first stage. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 1:15 pm
As the Supreme Court said in Hall v. [read post]
