Search for: "Lucas v State" Results 241 - 260 of 690
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Nov 2016, 9:30 pm by Florian Mueller
On the first day after a long Thanksgiving weekend, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied, without stating any particular reasons, a petition filed by Samsung earlier this month for a further rehearing en banc in an Apple v. [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 7:08 am by Thomas G. Heintzman
TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd. [2016] EWCA CIV 396, the English Court of Appeal has recently held that a contractual provision stating that the contract may only be amended by a written document signed by the parties is not enforceable. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 7:50 am by familoo
Even the Lucas direction is distilled : People can tell lies about some things and still tell the truth about other things. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 10:55 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 Lucas: Clickthrough is just infinitely higher. [read post]
7 Jun 2016, 3:18 am
In a decision in April of this year in Globe Motors v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Limited the Court of Appeal decided that no matter what the written terms of the contract state, the parties have freedom of contract to agree what they want. [read post]
7 Jun 2016, 3:18 am
In a decision in April of this year in Globe Motors v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Limited the Court of Appeal decided that no matter what the written terms of the contract state, the parties have freedom of contract to agree what they want. [read post]
10 May 2016, 7:56 am by Sally-Ann Underhill
., et al. v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd., et al. [2016] EWCA Civ 396, considered the impact of similar clauses, in that case one which provided “Entire agreement; amendment: This Agreement, which includes the Appendices hereto, is the only agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:29 am by David Fraser
As found by the Federal Court in  State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]