Search for: "United States v. Ochs"
Results 1 - 20
of 30
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: 1. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 7:11 am
Post-Och Telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 9:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 10:21 am
That stance is at odds with the US Supreme Court decision in United States v Jones (January 23, 2012), about which I posted yesterday. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 5:56 am
United States Fire Ins. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 2:27 pm
Perry v Truefitt, 49 ER 749 stated that ‘A man is not to sell his own goods under pretence that they are the goods of another man. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 12:37 pm
Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 4:25 pm
Heller in which he wrote the majority opinion and Citizens United v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 7:44 am
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11 centred on the constitutionality of s.29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, as amended by s.5 of the Criminal Law Act 1976. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 6:57 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 8:40 am
Section 5 is a computer-specific offence and deals with persons who, without lawful excuse, operate a computer within the State with intent to access any data kept either within or outside the State, or outside the State with intent to access any data kept within the State, whether or not any data is actually accessed. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 2:40 am
… I expressly refrained from expressing any view on it in Och-Ziff, since it did not arise in that case. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 2:43 pm
Court H.R., Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1 July 2008, no. 58243/00, § 62 and 63; Rotaru v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:08 am
Lord Carnwarth gave a concurring judgment in which he commented on the criticism that had been made of obiter remarks he had made in United Policyholders Group v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2016] UKPC 17 in relation in relation to the necessity for a detriment to have been suffered before a claim for substantive legitimate expectation could be made. [read post]
22 May 2017, 12:00 pm
Post- och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 9:40 pm
While this might not usually be a matter of surprise in the State Department report, the fact that the European Court of Human Rights handed down its important decision in A, B & C v Ireland in December makes it a strange omission. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 2:58 am
Furåsen and Åss (EPLAW) United Kingdom The Hargreaves Review – perhaps we don’t have to make heavy weather of this (1709 Blog) (1709 Blog) (IPKat) (Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law) Elvis appears in Court, which is more than can be said for the defendant: EWHC grants summary judgment in favour of EPE – Elvis Presley Enterprises v Carollo (trading as Everness) (IPKat) Initial interest confusion recognized by the English courts: Och-Ziff… [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 1:57 pm
The decision to make Sweden Protestant was made during the state council (riksråd) in Västerås in 1527. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm
Surveillance is of critical importance in the investigation of serious and organised crime, in determining the extent and patterns of criminal behaviour, and in the gathering of evidence to construct a case against a suspect; thus it has been described as one of the most important legal weapons deployed by the United States against Mafia groups and families (see Jacobs, Busting the Mob: United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 11:48 pm
‘Initial interest confusion’ part of EU trade mark law, says judge – EWCH decision in Och-Ziff Management Europe Ltd & Anor v Och Capital LLP & Anor (IPKat) Rooney: will his image rights income wax or wayne? [read post]
