Search for: "Nicholls v. Nicholls" Results 141 - 160 of 770
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2020, 7:03 am by Chris Castle
 Copyright Infringement Class Actions in the US and Canada: Chris and David Sterns (10 mins) (p. 138) —Compare US copyright infringement class action in Lowery v. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 6:43 am by INFORRM
Recent cases citing these rights together include Watson v Campos [2016] IEHC 18 (14 January 2016) [28] (Barrett J); Rooney v Shell E&P Ireland [2017] IEHC 63 (20 January 2017) [31]-[32] (Ní Raifeartaigh J); Ryanair v Channel 4 Television [2017] IEHC 651 (05 October 2017) [49]-[52] (Meenan J). [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 6:36 am by Daily Record Staff
Civil litigation — Final judgment rule — Motion to dismiss In this appeal from a civil action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Daryl Green, appellant, challenges the denial of a motion to dismiss, a motion to reconsider that denial (hereinafter “motion to reconsider”), a second motion to dismiss, a “Motion in Opposition ... [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:05 pm by Joshua Burd
Nichols said that “while the automobile has grown cleaner and more efficient, the other half of our transportation system has barely moved the needle on clean air. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 6:19 am by Schachtman
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]
8 Jun 2020, 12:36 pm by Robert M. Travisano
See Letter from Senators Kaine, King, and Coons to Rob Nichols (Apr. 9, 2020). [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 5:46 pm
New York: Basic Books, 1992.Shippen, Nichole Marie. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 6:53 am by Andrew Hamm
Nichols 19-794Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
As anticipated, and affirmed in Economou v de Freitas [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) (see our blog here), the new section 4 defence is being interpreted broadly in line with the principles of the common law ‘Reynolds’ privilege (although there remains some debate between practitioners as to the level of  importance to be attributed to each of the old ‘Reynolds criteria’ – Lord Nicholls’ checklist for good practice – in view… [read post]