Search for: "State v. Clifford" Results 121 - 140 of 310
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2015, 5:13 am
 Nicola tells all.* Can the State automatically acquire ownership of your copyright? [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:35 am
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE * Never too late 64 - [week ending on Sunday 20 September] – Adwords in Canada | EU Draft consultation on ISPs | "The UPC: A Panel Debate" | Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby dancing Prince  Lenz v Universal Music | CJEU in KitKat | Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) | Economics of Collecting Societies |… [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 11:35 am
It wasn’t until 1987 that Clifford Turner and Coward Chance merged, for example, and in 2004, when Slaughter and May celebrated its 125th anniversary, most of the people who had ever been partners were still alive. [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 4:08 pm
(Eleonora takes the floor).* Confidence, privacy and a question of fax: butler's claim can't be struck outPaul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) is a High Court, Chancery Division decision addressing a sad story of faxes, Royal Families, and litigation that should end up with a settlement. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 3:13 pm by Michel-Adrien
The Library of Parliament today published a post on its HillNotes blog that refers to the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 5:25 pm by Lyle Denniston
Since the Justices’ ruling in 2008 in District of Columbia v. [read post]
24 Aug 2014, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Both concern complains by victim of sexual assault by Max Clifford. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 4:30 am by INFORRM
  It appeared to remain the law that where a conclusion was “objectively verifiable” it was not defensible as comment (although reconciling Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 is not straight forward on this). [read post]
9 May 2014, 3:59 am by INFORRM
  In R v Legal Aid Board, ex p Kaim Todner ([1999] QB 966), the Court stated that it was important not to forget why proceedings need to be held under the full glare of a public hearing because there was a natural tendency for the general principle to be eroded. [read post]