Search for: "Sting v. Davis" Results 1 - 20 of 50
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Apr 2023, 3:48 am by Seán Binder
  South Korean spies and U.S. private investigators are part of a sting operation to seize $100 million in cryptocurrency stolen by North Korea. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 1:07 pm by Neal Davis
Such massive human trafficking stings can result in dozens of arrests, not just 3 as in the case of the V-Live Gentleman’s Club. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
Ben Stokes v The Sun: gross intrusion or simple reportage? [read post]
27 May 2019, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
” Finally, Mr Stirling submitted that there was nothing by way of antidote to the defamatory sting complained of. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
The Panopticon Blog has covered the case of Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1780. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 2:27 am by INFORRM
Piepenbrock v London School of Economics, heard 16, 17, 20 23, 24 and 27 July 2018 (Nicola Davies J). [read post]
14 Apr 2018, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
My view is that – as well as being a very good judgment – the decision of Lord Justice Davis is one that actually should be endorsed by those who act for defendants. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 1:40 pm by Kevin
The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion today in Davis v. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 5:05 pm by INFORRM
Canada The president of Surrey Creep Catchers, a controversial vigilante group that says it exposes child predators, is being sued for defamation for the second time in a month after he criticised sting operations on Facebook. [read post]
29 Jan 2017, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
As already mentioned, on 24, 25 and 26 January 2017, the Supreme Court (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Sumption, Hughes and Hodge) heard the joined appeals in the cases of Flood v Times Newspapers, Miller v Associated Newspapers and Frost v MGN. [read post]
4 Dec 2016, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
Last week in the Courts On 29 and 30 November and 1 December 2016 the Court of Appeal (Macfarlane, Davis and Sharp LJJ) heard the important “serious harm” appeal in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print. [read post]