Search for: "Nicholls v. Nicholls"
Results 441 - 460
of 769
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2018, 4:08 pm
On 21 November the Court of Appeal delivered a major decision on the statutory public interest defence for defamation claims, in the case of Alexander Economou v David de Freitas [2018] EWCA Civ 2591. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 4:23 pm
On 3 June 2020 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 1:59 am
Bannerjee: “In my judgment, this case bears no resemblance to the cases that Lord Nicholls had in mind as exceptional. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 5:53 am
From Jacobs v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 6:51 am
Security Insurance Company v. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 7:00 am
[McGunigle v City of Quency, USCA, First Circuit, Docket # 15-2224.] [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 4:38 am
See Rubenstein v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm
More Platforms, More Taxes McChesney and Nichols don’t go into a lot of detail about their tax proposals, but the consumer electronics tax they favor appears to be based on the 1967 Carnegie Commission Report, which called for a 5% tax on all new television purchases—a variant on Britain’s annual licensing fee. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 6:57 am
” At the Consumer Law and Policy Blog, Leah Nicholls and Brian Wolfman analyze Monday’s decision in Elgin v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 8:42 pm
” Harlan v. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 4:00 am
Godard v. [read post]
15 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Lord Justice Nicholls delivered the lead judgment. [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 6:20 pm
Nichols, 438 F.3d 437, 441 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Acosta and cases cited therein with approval). [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 9:04 am
While the Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh had regarded it as an open question whether Reynolds applies to opinion, Lords Nicholls and Hobhouse had said in Reynolds ([2001] 2 AC 127, at 201 and 193-5 per Lord Nicholls and 237-8 per Lord Hobhouse.) that the expression of opinion was protected, if at all by, by fair comment. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 4:26 pm
Normal 0 0 1 2970 16934 The University of Chicago 141 33 20796 11.1282 0 0 0 I. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 12:26 pm
Bell v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 3:22 am
” On this basis, and for various other reasons, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Claimant was not “likely” to obtain a final injunction at trial in accordance with the test set out in section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and the judgment of Lord Nicholls in Cream Holdings v Banerjee ([2005] 1 AC 253), and therefore lifted the injunction that it had previously granted. [read post]
30 Dec 2007, 10:35 pm
Nichols of Goodwin Procter LLP, who is a lawyer and Director of Litigation Technology. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 6:19 am
In talc exposure litigation of ovarian cancer claims, plaintiffs were struggling to show that cosmetic talc use caused ovarian cancer, despite missteps by the defense.[1] And then lawsuit industrialist Mark Lanier entered the fray and offered a meretriciously beguiling move: Stop trying talc cases and start trying asbestos cases. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 7:55 am
In this week’s case (Nicholls v. [read post]
