Search for: "SHARP v. HALL"
Results 61 - 80
of 168
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2017, 5:07 pm
And: The Post has asked County Hall to respond to the judge’s criticisms on the case. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm
In Roach v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 6:55 am
Connell, there is a key distinction between “attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege” that plays an important role in the non-legal v. legal communications distinction. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 4:44 pm
On 1 March 2016, Sharp and Hamblen LJJ heard a renewed application for permission to appeal in the case of Sloutsker v Romanova. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 7:05 am
Lewis v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 4:31 am
I cannot remember a Supreme Court without his sharp wit and styling prose, which cannot be replaced. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 9:37 am
He said the morning after the release of the opinion in Texas v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:31 am
” Hall monitor? [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 6:27 am
Vera received his B.A. from Seton Hall Law School. [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 4:01 am
There is sharp debate as to what to do if Z insists that his lawyer keep the report confidential and not disclose it to anyone. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
IX, Two Islands: Newfoundland & PEI edited by Christopher English 2004 Osgoode Hall: An Illustrated History by John Honsberger Aggressive in Pursuit: The Life of Justice Emmett Hall by Frederick Vaughan The Heiress vs. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 9:30 pm
Board of Education and Bolling, of course, began a decade and a half of contention in the courts, streets, and legislative halls. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 6:07 am
Photo of Inglewood City Hall courtesy of Flickr user fauxtos under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 4:11 pm
The most important data protection judgment of the year was that of the Court of Appeal in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) – again the subject of a popular case comment. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm
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]
30 Apr 2015, 1:11 pm
The Court disagreed, citing SCOTUS’s Wyeth v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 4:09 pm
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]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:03 am
’ Wilson had some pretty sharp words for BBC journalists, observing that they are: Unlikely to be able to explain the issues clearly unless they understand them themselves. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 4:01 pm
Finally, we draw attention to three cases which were heard this term in which judgment is awaited: OPO v MLA, heard 19 and 20 January 2015 (UK Supreme Court) Murray v Associated Newspapers, heard 21 January 2015 (Longmore, Ryder and Sharp LJJ) Various Claimants v MGN, heard 9-13, 18, 24-25 March 2015 (Mann J) [read post]
