Search for: "Sheridan v Very, Ltd"
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2023, 4:30 pm
See also South Hetton Coal Co v North-Eastern News Association [1894] 1 QB 133; Jones v Halton [1909] 2 KB 444; Browne v DC Thomson & Co [1912] SC 359; Irish People’s Assurance Society v City of Dublin Assurance Company Ltd [1929] IR 25 (SC); Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116, [1944] UKHL 1 (03 April 1944); Awolowo v Zik Enterprises… [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 12:27 pm
New York.September 21, 2010.HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN, SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES, LLP, By: Steven M. [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 4:56 pm
What matters is that the rift within the political party in question was a very public matter in which the pursuer and others could legitimately be exposed to criticism”. [29] In addition, the judge found that the statements by Mr Sheridan were privileged as “reply to attack”. [read post]
31 Dec 2022, 4:51 pm
” In this case, the operation in question, Operation Sheridan, concerned only eight suspects, of which the claimant was one. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 3:45 am
Another case to consider is Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 12:45 pm
The blog is already well covered in terms of South African input, but candidates from other African countries (or from outside Africa but who have inside information) should email Darren here and introduce themselves and tell him what they can do to help with the blog.It's not yet available on BAILII, but Football Association Premier League Ltd and others v QC Leisure (a trading name) and others has just got a little more complex. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm
Pennsylvania precedent does not support the public nuisance claim plaintiffs advance here, and we cannot predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will choose to expand state public nuisance law in the manner plaintiffs urge.Id. at 421 (citations to Lead Industries, Leo, and Camden omitted)In Sheridan v. [read post]
