Search for: "Nicholls v. Nicholls" Results 101 - 120 of 850
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2021, 1:54 pm by Giles Peaker
The “deliberate and cynical nature of the conduct” of CID, while true, was not sufficient by itself to justify disgorgement damages, pace Lord Nicholls in Blake. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 9:30 pm by ernst
Louis) and Christopher McKnight Nichols (Oregon State University), "Can the new Atlantic Charter match the importance of the original? [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 6:39 am by Daily Record Staff
She sued Jacob Parr, appellee, and Vicki Nichols, Mr. [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
The Mischon de Reya website has a post about the CJEU decision in WS v. [read post]
31 May 2021, 9:41 am by Eugene Volokh
Coalition for Better Government, 901 F.3d 498, 506 n.8 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting Section 1125(a) applies only to "commercial advertising and promotion"); Nichols v. [read post]
4 May 2021, 8:49 am by fjhinojosa
Ballentine, Discussing Privacy in sec Subpoena Practice After Carpenter v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
Over-vigorous application of a statutory offence might be greeted in similar terms to those employed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Twitter Joke Trial case (Chambers v DPP), an appeal from conviction under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003: “The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 12:43 am by Cyberleagle
Over-vigorous application of a statutory offence might be greeted in similar terms to those employed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Twitter Joke Trial case (Chambers v DPP), an appeal from conviction under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003:“The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt's essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. [read post]
4 Apr 2021, 10:49 am by Eugene Volokh
Yesterday, I blogged about the lawsuit by Marc Rotenberg, former head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, against Politico and Protocol, over a story that discussed Rotenberg's positive COVID test result, and Rotenberg's not immediately informing his staff about the test. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 7:52 pm by Adeline Chong
The High Court’s recent decision in Allenger v Pelletier [2020] SGHC 279, issued barely a year after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies [2019] 2 SLR 595; [2019] SGCA 50 (see previous post here) qualifies the latter, confounding Singapore’s position on this complex issue even further. [read post]