Search for: "Unknown Watson"
Results 81 - 100
of 100
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2020, 8:17 am
As a fundamental feature of the measures was to discover previously unknown threats by searching through the bulk metadata sets, compliance with these requirements would undermine the primary purpose of the SIAS bulk collection programme. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 4:05 pm
In GYH v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 121 (QB) he entered judgment for an injunction in a harassment case, making an order for damages to be assessed. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 11:26 am
Watson, 273 F.3d 599 (U.S. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:37 pm
These figures don't account for an unknown number of additional individuals who might benefit from either bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy options but whose lack of knowledge, confidence, or support prevents action. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 9:47 am
” It is unknown if Sen. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
The Wrongful Dismissal eBook, with the promise of more to come at some unknown future date, a digest and an document or two, do nothing for a legal researcher. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 2:40 am
Fox Corporation has agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million (£630m) to settle a landmark defamation suit brought by the election technology company over claims repeatedly aired on Fox News suggesting its voting machines were involved in a conspiracy to rig the 2020 US presidential election. [read post]
13 Jun 2022, 12:39 am
IPSO 10091-21 Williams v Hull Daily Mail, 2 Privacy (2019), 12 Discrimination (2019), 1 Accuracy (2021), Breach – sanction: publication of correction 11209-21 Watson v Sunday Mail, 1 Accuracy (2021) 4 Intrusion into grief or shock (2021), Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication 11246-21 Extinction Rebellion v The Spectator, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation 00368-22 Thompson v The Daily Telegraph, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after… [read post]
1 May 2023, 7:46 am
Last week in the courts On 24 April 2023, Linden J granted an injunction following the hack of the claimant’s IT system in the case of Armstrong Watson LLP v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 921 (KB). [read post]
24 Jul 2021, 11:51 am
Back in 2008, Professor Michael Green wrote an interesting paper on apportionment in asbestos litigation. [read post]
3 Sep 2021, 4:00 am
Election officials and security experts say previously unknown technical vulnerabilities could be discovered by partisan malefactors and exploited in future elections. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 2:22 am
On the same day Ritchie J handed down judgment in the case of Armstrong Watson LLP v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 762 (KB) setting out his reasons for granting a without notice injunction at a private hearing in a case where the claimant law firm had been subject to a hack of its IT systems and a subsequent blackmail attempt. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:18 am
The response from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Libraries, for example, indicates that its special collections includes “unpublished manuscripts, letters, and diaries”, such as the Watson Collection, which “consists of 7.5 linear feet of correspondence written between 1873 and 1986. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 4:30 pm
Watson out on a camping expedition. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 2:08 pm
When the Levine, Riegel, and Kent cases were briefed in the United States Supreme Court, we provided our readers with “users’ guides”/”guided tours” that summarized the defense side arguments and pointed out whatever we thought was interesting.Today we’re continuing that tradition with the Bruesewitz (sooner or later we’ll memorize how to spell that) v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:49 pm
Watson, 149 F. [read post]
25 Dec 2022, 2:14 am
In 2016, I wrote a lengthy post about Christmas in the D.C. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 12:34 pm
For (again according to the Board's official Web page) it has not met again ("barked") after August 17.This observation, my dear Watson, raises at once the following question: Why did the dog in question "bark" on August 17 -- two full months ago -- but not once since? [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm
Even though M.G.L. c. 118E, s. 48 provides that the Director of the Board of Hearings “shall be responsible …for the training of referees,” it is unknown to the elder law bar whether such training has occurred regarding the details of federal Medicaid trust law, so hearing officers at the Board of Hearings may have been and may still be susceptible to being misled by the MassHealth Essay. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm
Even though M.G.L. c. 118E, s. 48 provides that the Director of the Board of Hearings “shall be responsible …for the training of referees,” it is unknown to the elder law bar whether such training has occurred regarding the details of federal Medicaid trust law, so hearing officers at the Board of Hearings may have been and may still be susceptible to being misled by the MassHealth Essay. [read post]
