Search for: "State v. McComb"
Results 21 - 40
of 106
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2019, 7:43 am
Rutherford Food Corp. v. [read post]
19 May 2019, 4:15 pm
As already mentioned, on 17 May 2019, the Court of Appeal (Lewison, McCombe and Haddon-Cave LJJ) handed down judgment in the case of Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 (heard 5 March 2019). [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court held in Rutherford Food Corporation v. [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
United States The Cyberlaw Clinic reports that it has filed an amicus curiae brief (.pdf) in the United States Supreme Court in Oracle v. [read post]
3 Mar 2019, 4:51 pm
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 4:23 pm
Stocker v Stocker, heard 24 January 2019 (UKSC) Various Claimants v MGN, heard 13 February 2019 (McCombe, Ryder and Floyd LJJ) (judgment to be handed down on 7 March 2019). [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 4:06 pm
IPSO has handed down a number of recent rulings: Resolution Statement 0782-18 Wilson v thesun.co.uk, 2 Privacy (2018), 1 Accuracy (2018), Resolved – IPSO mediation Resolution Statement 07827-18 Wilson v Mail Online, 1 Accuracy (2018), 2 Privacy (2018), Resolved – IPSO mediation 06605-18 McPartlin and Corbett v Woman, 2 Privacy (2018), No breach – after investigation 06604-18 McPartlin and Corbett v Now, 2 Privacy (2018), No breach – after… [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 7:15 am
Floyd LJ, giving the leading judgment (with which McCombe and Kitchin LJJ agreed) noted that procedural rules such as the one noted above from Phipps on Evidence are important, but not inflexible. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:52 am
As part of the appellant’s application to work as a teacher, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) issued an ECRC. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 2:46 am
As demonstrated by Mamatkulov v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 25, DFAL’s criterion of serious irreversible harm shows some intersection with the ECtHR’s application of rule 39 relief. [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 4:05 pm
On 3 March 2017 the Court of Appeal (Lewison, Lloyd-Jones and McCombe LJJ) gave judgment in the important data protection case of Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens RTM Company Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 121. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 2:14 pm
The question, in large part, was the significance of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council; Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2016] AC 811, at paras 78 and 79 “78. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm
Spence, Professor of Law, Politics & Regulation, University of Texas School of Law and McCombs School of Business—Corporate Social Responsibility in the Shale Patch? [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 5:56 am
At the Notice and Comment blog, David Feder discusses Esquivel-Quintana v. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 6:06 am
Roper, Stanford University, on Thursday, September 1, 2016 Tags: Basic, Disclosure, Erica John Fund v. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 12:37 pm
” RBKC’s review upheld suitability, stating: “42. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 5:04 am
This memo will has obvious added consequences to state interpretation to this issue. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
Specifically, it’s the section quoted below, partially because it applies the rule cited above; but, also because I’m a 13-year-old trapped in a 39-year-old employment lawyer’s body: In Rutherford Food Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:34 am
McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947), and Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. [read post]
Motor Carrier Exemption Applies to Drivers Who can be Expected to Drive Interstate Continue Reading…
19 May 2015, 11:24 am
McComb The Third Circuit cited to Morris v. [read post]
