Search for: "Strong v. Cox"
Results 41 - 60
of 143
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2024, 5:52 am
Ohio law is consistent with federal law on this strong presumption against pseudonymity. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:02 pm
See Cox v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 1:37 pm
Property v. property: TM v. domain names; land v. chattels; IP v. consumer goods. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 8:21 am
The Supreme Court recently delivered judgment in the case of Patmalniece (FC) v SoS for Work and Pensions. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 9:18 am
"Should U.S. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 1:45 pm
With Williams v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 4:30 am
Cox v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 6:38 am
No, says the European Court of Human Rights | BMG v Cox - when does an ISP lose its safe harbour protection? [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 9:24 am
Cox, 18 Tex. 535, 537 (1857) and Kennedy v. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 8:10 am
In M.C. and J.C. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 2:36 pm
Janus v. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 12:58 pm
Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan ("Attorney General"). [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 10:02 am
The Court disagreed relying on Cox v. [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 9:14 am
US. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 11:59 am
Neville Cox (who taught me defamation law seven years ago!) [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm
On 29 January 2011 Cox J granted an injunction to restrain publication. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:35 pm
Riley v Murray, then, sits uncomfortably with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Miller v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926, which was handed down on the same day. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 1:50 am
Thus, in Cox v Turkey (20 May 2010), the Strasbourg Court held that Article 10 was engaged by the ban on the re-entry of a US woman who had expressed strong views on issues of Kurdish assimilation and the treatment of Armenians. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 11:28 am
The judges reluctantly followed the line taken in R (Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 5:30 am
Thus, in Cox v Turkey (20 May 2010), the Strasbourg Court held that Article 10 was engaged by the ban on the re-entry of a US woman who had expressed strong views on issues of Kurdish assimilation and the treatment of Armenians. [read post]
