Search for: "State v. Nichols" Results 241 - 260 of 609
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Oct 2015, 10:05 am by John Elwood
The facts in Nichols v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 10:03 am by lennyesq
This letter cannot be said to imply that legal action has already been or is about to be initiated… Full Text of Nichols, Plaintiff v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 1:59 am by INFORRM
Bannerjee: “In my judgment, this case bears no resemblance to the cases that Lord Nicholls had in mind as exceptional. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 6:53 am by Andrew Hamm
Nichols 19-794Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 5:07 pm by INFORRM
  Sir Robin Jacob (who retired from the Court of Appeal last year but was making one of his occasional reappearances) in giving the leading judgment noted Lord Nicholls in Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1996] AC 284, p.308: “The court may grant an injunction against a party properly before it where this is required to avoid injustice […] The court habitually grants injunctions in respect of certain types of conduct. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for Newsweek, Isa Farrington Nichols, whose niece was murdered by convicted D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, weighs in on Mathena v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
It starts with the SMH articles – a front page story by state political editor, Sean Nicholls, headed Treasurer for sale: Joe Hockey offers privileged access continued on pages six and seven and a comment/analysis by the paper’s chief political correspondent Mark Kenny headed The price tag on Joe Hockey. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 4:23 am by Edith Roberts
At The Nation, John Nichols argues that the ruling “raises the prospect that even more aggressive purges could be implemented by Republican officials in battleground states where statewide contests are frequently decided by narrow margins. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 6:18 am by Terry Hart
This principle was explained most notably by Judge Learned Hand in the 1930 case Nichols v Universal Pictures: It is of course essential to any protection of literary property, whether at common-law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 5:45 am by Barry Sookman
Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2001] 1 All E.R. 700 (H.L.), at p. 706, per Lord Hoffmann; see also Nichols v. [read post]