Search for: "Smith v. Gilbert*" Results 1 - 20 of 78
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Dec 2008, 9:56 am
The proceedings were transferred to the Administrative Court and stayed pending the appeal in Smith (On Behalf of the Gypsy Council) v Buckland [2007] EWCA Civ 1318. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 7:12 am
324/09 L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL and eBay (UK) Limited (see Part I for background, Part II for the ruling and an easy summary). [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 9:55 am
"The DJ also features CAFA Conundrum: Diversity is What Counts, by Reed Smith appellate specialists Jim Martin and David de Jesus, about the controversy over the scope of CAFA's appellate review provision, and noting that the 9th Circuit recently joined "the 5th, 6th, and 8th Circuits in holding that CAFA's appellate review provision is limited to remand orders where a party claims diversity jurisdiction under CAFA" in Chan Healthcare Group, PS v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"The elements of a cause of action for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff[s] and damages" (Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559; see Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 488; Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421). [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"The elements of a cause of action for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff[s] and damages" (Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559; see Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 488; Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421). [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 5:00 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
Please contact Arnold & Smith, PLLC today at (855) 370-2828 or find additional resources here. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 6:19 am
Smith, (California Supreme Court 2004) 32 Cal.4th 792, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 290, 86 P.3d 348.) [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 8:14 am by Francis Davey
The idea appears to have been widely accepted — for example it was argued by counsel in Cardwell v Lucas (1836) 2 Meeson and Welsby 111 150 E.R. 691 and upheld by yhe Court of Exchequer in Gandy v Jubber (1865) 5 Best and Smith 15 122 E.R. 914. [read post]