Search for: "Mark E. Hurst" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2013, 7:50 am by INFORRM
Ashley Hurst is a Partner at Olswang LLP, specialising in media and internet-related disputes. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Exclusion for matters relating to personal data However, whilst these safe harbour provisions apply to a wide variety of claims for defamation, breach of privacy, copyright and trade mark infringement, they do not apply to data protection claims. [read post]
14 May 2015, 12:57 am by INFORRM
In particular, the remedies available and the jurisdictional scope of data protection law need to be carefully examined against the so-called “safe harbour” defences available to internet intermediaries (or more accurately “information society service providers” as defined by the E-Commerce Directive 2000 (2000/31/EC) (the “E-Commerce Directive)). [read post]
15 May 2015, 4:27 pm by INFORRM
  In Cartier, the defendant internet service providers in the UK resisted an injunction sought to protect the claimants’ trade mark rights in certain luxury brands. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 2:59 am
 That became apparent in the 2006 E. coli outbreak in spinach in California. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 6:08 am by Amy Howe
  Other commentary on the argument in Hurst comes from Mark Stern at Slate and David Dow at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:05 am by John Elwood
Florida and none of the findings required by Hurst were made, the error can be deemed harmless under Chapman v. [read post]
26 Jul 2008, 4:58 pm
If you are a specialist and would like to be added to our list please e-mail me your contact information at [Robert@dioriofirm.com] The Law Offices of Robert A. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 9:25 am by smtaber
If you would like to receive this update in an e-mail delivered to your inbox every Monday, please send an e-mail to subscribe@taberlaw.com with the word “subscribe” in the subject line. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 6:29 pm by Marty Lederman
Part II of Donald Trump’s brief argues that the factual predicate for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Trump’s name from the primary ballot was absent because Trump did not “engage in” an insurrection against the United States on January 6, 2021.[1]  [Apologies in advance about all the footnotes, but I didn't want to clutter the text with too many peripheral matters.]The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump’s words on January 6… [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 7:29 am by John Elwood
March 9 in Hurst v. [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 6:07 pm
(UC Davis)Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)Tschoegl Adrian E. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 8:29 am by Justin Walsh
Silva State Representative Dist. 16, Pos. 1 – Maureen Walsh State Representative Dist. 17, Pos. 1 – Tim Probst State Representative Dist. 17, Pos. 2 – Monica Stonier State Representative Dist. 18, Pos. 1 – No Endorsement State Representative Dist. 19, Pos. 1 – Dean Takko State Representative Dist. 19, Pos. 2 – Brian E. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:11 am by MOTP
Take Payday Lenders and Arbitration as a Textbook Case: What is the Majority Position on Litigation Waiver and Who Got It Right? [read post]