Search for: "SHARP v. HALL" Results 1 - 20 of 122
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2014, 5:04 pm by Thomas Kaufman
The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision earlier this month in Hall v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal decision in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311(27 March 2015) (Dyson MR and Sharp LJ in a joint judgment; McFarlane LJ concurring), affirming the judgment of Tugendhat J (at[2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)), is a very important decision on damages for invasion of privacy, and it raises significant questions about the correctness of Feeney J’s reasoning in the earlier Irish case of Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137… [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 2:52 am by Walter Olson
Ross, “Short Circuit”, on Tennessee v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:53 am by INFORRM
In Vidal-Hall v, Google Inc ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) the Court of Appeal dismissed Google’s appeal from the decision of Tugendhat J in which he declined to declare that the English court did not have jurisdiction to hear data protection and misuse of private information claims brought against it. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
It is now over ten years since the landmark decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] 2 AC 457) established the misuse of private information (“MOPI”) tort (any lingering doubt that it might not be a tort has been eradicated by the Court of Appeal decision in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311). [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 4:31 am by Jon Hyman
I cannot remember a Supreme Court without his sharp wit and styling prose, which cannot be replaced. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Vos C (Sharp P and Davis LJ concurring) said that the Court had been right in Vidal-Hall to give an autonomous meaning to Article 23 DPD and section 13 of the 1998 Act, and to construe both on the basis that they were giving effect to Article 8 CFR and Article 47 CFR (he might, with profit, have referred to Article 7 CFR as well). [read post]
22 May 2019, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
But the two opinions also express seemingly sharp disagreement on stare decisis. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 10:00 pm by DONALD SCARINCI
Below is a brief summary of issues before the Court last week: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
17 May 2014, 3:05 am by SHG
Sharpe, concerning racial segregation in District of Columbia schools. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 11:08 pm
Given that Thompson and Hall relied on s.82(2) HA 1985, there is a logical distinction between the two acts. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 3:30 am by Steve Vladeck
Justice O’Connor retired from the Court in January 2006, and Rosen was writing to bemoan the sharp conservative turn that he believed the Court had taken over the five years since Justice Samuel Alito had been confirmed as her successor. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am by INFORRM
Background Following the seminal case of Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311, this is the second significant piece of litigation arising from Google’s use of the so-called “Safari Workaround” in 2011-2012. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 8:02 pm by INFORRM
Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland, heard 25 and 26 July 2018 (Sharp and Asplin LJJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 9:36 am by INFORRM
Robert Sharp, also of English PEN, has dissected some of the detail here and here. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
” This blog’s analysis of Monday’s opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme v. [read post]