Search for: "Sinclair v. Sinclair" Results 1 - 20 of 369
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jan 2010, 11:13 am by Steve Bainbridge
In one of his annual posts disparaging Delaware corporate law decisions of the past year, Jay Brown attacks en passant one of my favorite Delaware cases; namely, Sinclair Oil v. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 2:56 am
Sinclair v Glatt and others [2009] EWCA Civ 176; [2009] WLR (D) 97 “A receiver appointed pursuant to s 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to get in the assets of a convicted money launderer was entitled to recover his remuneration, costs and expenses from the realisable assets caught by the order. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:38 pm
The SOB is a malingerer, pure and simple.Today's news is Sinclair v. [read post]
16 Apr 2009, 2:32 am
Sinclair and Another v Glatt and Others Court of Appeal “A court-appointed receiver could have a lien on the property held in a convict's name even though he had only a bare legal interest in it. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 2:27 am by sally
Merton London Borough Council v Sinclair Collis Ltd [2010] WLR (D) 286 “Notwithstanding the civil complaint procedure embodied in s 7(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended), a sale of tobacco to a person under the age of 18 through a cigarette vending machine was capable of being an offence contrary to s 7(1) of the 1933 Act. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 10:10 pm
Courtesy of Professor Bainbridge is a link to an article by Professor Bob Thompson on the seminal  Delaware Supreme Court decision in Sinclair Oil v. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 3:21 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
As matters stand, the non-compete clause would not have been enforceable against Harcus Sinclair as a solicitor’s undertaking because Harcus Sinclair, as an LLP, is not an officer of the court. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 2:13 am by sally
Regina (Sinclair Collis Ltd and another) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWCA Civ 437; [2011] WLR (D) 200 “The prohibition on the sale of tobacco from automatic vending machines was justified on the ground of the protection of public health, was proportionate and therefore did not violate EU law by its adverse effect on the business of the operators of vending machines and suppliers in other EU states. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 6:32 am by John Jascob
The fact that Sinclair understood "reasonable best efforts" differently than Tribune and then failed in its gamble to keep the stations was fraud by hindsight, the court said, and the investors could have been winners if Sinclair's gambit had succeeded (Water Island Event-Driven Fund, LLC v. [read post]