Search for: "Walker v. Bentley"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2020, 6:18 am
The most recent published case on this issue is Bentley v. [read post]
4 Aug 2021, 2:23 am
In referring to this case, the appellants submitted that it had been wrongly decided because it was inconsistent with Radcliffe v Bartholomew [1892] 1 QB 161 and was disapproved in both Marren v Dawson Bentley & Co Ltd [1961] 2 QB135 and Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons [1973] QB 336. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 7:08 am
They relied upon the Court of Appeal authority of Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons [1973] QB 336 and the first instance decision in Marren v Dawson Bentley & Co Ltd [1961] 2 QB135, which established that where a cause of action accrues part way through a day, that day should be excluded for limitation purposes. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 11:57 am
Walker, 270 Ga. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 3:35 am
Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v Canon (Patents Post Grant Blog) District Court C D California: Microsoft Word does not infringe patent claiming user interface that is ‘continuously responsive to user input’ even though the accused interface ‘from the user’s standpoint… remains continuously responsive’: Walker Digital, LLC v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 8:10 am
Last week, on behalf of sixty corporate and securities law professors from thirty-eight law schools around the country, I filed an amici curiae brief in the case of Lucian Bebchuk vs. [read post]
