If the goal of the FTC is to protect against consumer harm, then there should be a likelihood of harm before bringing an action.
|
|
Code Proc. La. § 6.; Preston v Zabrisky, 2 La 226, 227. The dispossessed party must have had quiet and undisturbed possession for a year and a day of the property before bringing an action.
|
|
The owner of mask work rights may pursue an alleged infringer ("chip pirate") by bringing an action for mask work infringement in federal district court. The remedies available correspond generally to those of copyright law and patent law.
|
|
This section was enacted to prevent section 4 of the Statute of Frauds being circumvented bringing an action for the tort of deceit (the tort in Freeman v Palsey(1789) 3 TR 51), by requiring the representation of credit be in writing signed by the party charged.
|
|
See De Magno v. United States, 636 F.2d 714, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (district court had jurisdiction over claim involving VA’s “affirmative action against an individual whether by bringing an action to recover on an asserted claim or by proceeding on its common-law right of set-off”) (discussing similar language of predecessor statute, 38 U.S.C. § 211) See, e.g.
|
|
Quoted in Watkins 83. Watkins refers to the actor under discussion as Charles James Mathews. Mathews first used the African-American impression during the 1822-23 American tour, so it is reasonable to assume that Watkins is discussing the elder Charles Mathews and not his son, C.J. Mathews, who also became an actor. Mathews won 3,000 crowns' damages after bringing an action for libel against the Philadelphia Gazette.
|
|
The filly ran unplaced in the race and Hastings was ruined. Day was accused of knowing that the filly had lost her form, and of misleading Hastings and others as to her condition while wagering heavily against her. When Henry John Rous made allegations about Day's behaviour in a letter to The Times, the trainer responded by bringing an action for libel. The anticipated court case did not materialise as Rous issued a qualified apology.
|
|
On 19 July 1764 Grosvenor married Henrietta Vernon, daughter of Henry Vernon of Hilton Park, Staffordshire; they had four sons. However the marriage was not happy, and Henrietta had an affair with Henry, Duke of Cumberland, the younger brother of George III. The couple were discovered in flagrante delicto in 1769, which led to Grosvenor bringing an action against the Duke for "criminal conversation" (that is, adultery). He was awarded damages of £10,000, which together with costs, amounted to an award of £13,000 (£ in 2015).
|
|
It was started by Thomas Carnan, in opposition to the Ladies' Diary, published by the Stationers' Company and edited by Charles Hutton and like it included mathematical puzzles. The company claimed a monopoly of almanacs, but their claim was disallowed by the court of common pleas, on their bringing an action against Carnan, who published the first number of his diary in December 1775. It continued till 1786, the word 'Gentlemen' being dropped after 1780. Part of it was devoted to mathematical problems by Burrow and various contributors.
|
|
On 1 July 1859 the court granted a decree to dissolve the marriage of the Mures, and on 9 August Chichester married Mrs Mure,"The Hon. George Augustus Hamilton Chichester" in The Spectator dated 11 July 1863, p. 2Donegall, Marquess of (I, 1791) at cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Retrieved 22 February 2018 but in 1863 he successfully applied to the court for this marriage to be declared void, bringing an action against "Virginia Elizabeth Mure, falsely called Virginia Elizabeth Chichester", on the grounds that no divorcee could remarry within three months of the decree.
|
|
Sullivan case. "Any American public figure bringing an action now has to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly." Two other critics of English defamation law, the US lawyers Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silverglate, have cited the example of Irish-Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz, who by the time of his death in 2009, had threatened suit more than 40 times in England against those who accused him of funding terrorism. Mahfouz also took legal action in Belgium, France and Switzerland against those repeating the accusations.
|
|
In 1999, former members Graham Oliver and Steven Dawson registered 'Saxon' as a trade mark. They then maintained that they had exclusive rights to the name and tried to prevent Biff Byford and Saxon's promoters and merchandisers from using the name. Byford applied to the Trade Mark Registry to have the trade mark declared invalid. He applied on the basis that the registration had been obtained in bad faith and that he was entitled to prevent use of the trade mark by bringing an action for 'passing off', that is an action to stop others misrepresenting themselves as Saxon.
|
|
Foreigners were frequently granted the right of public hospitality by the senate down to the end of the republic. The public hospes had a right to entertainment at the public expense, admission to sacrifices and games, the right of buying and selling on his own account, and of bringing an action at law without the intervention of a Roman patron. A full bibliography of the subject will be found in the article in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités, to which may be added Rudolf von Jhering. Die Gastfreundschaft im Altertum (1887); see also Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd ed.
|
|
The plaintiff, Edward Darcy, a Groom of the Chamber in the court of Queen Elizabeth, received from the Queen a license to import and sell all playing cards to be marketed in England. This arrangement was apparently secured in part by the Queen's concern that card-playing was becoming a problem among her subjects and that having one person control the trade would regulate the activity. When the defendant, Thomas Allin, a member of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers, sought to make and sell his own playing cards, Darcy sued, bringing an action on the case for damages.Sir Edward Coke, The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke, ed.
|
|
In United States jurisprudence, the writ of audita querela functioned as a common-law action, sounding in tort. As in England, the writ had to be brought in the trial court that rendered the original judgment. An essential element of bringing an action at audita querela was injury or danger thereof, and it had to be brought between the two parties of the earlier proceeding that rendered the judgment. It also required that, if there were multiple defendants subject to the original judgment, they all take part in the proceeding unless the defendant bringing the suit was the sole defendant subject to execution and only brought the suit to vacate the judgment.
|
|
Judgment risks include, inter alia, risks involved in taking the dispute to court, losing on a procedural issue, the risk of an unfriendly court, evidentiary problems and the threat of political uncertainty that could prevent an action being brought against a party. Execution risks include the risk that a plaintiff could not execute a judgment against the defendant. This is often due to defendant insolvency or due to the unenforceability of one country's court judgments in another country. Finally jurisdictional risks are part of both the above risks: they revolve mainly around the costs and difficulty that a party would endure when bringing an action against the defendant who is usually located in another jurisdiction.
|
|
Anna Maria, Countess of Shrewsbury later returned to Britain and remarried in 1677 George Rodney Brydges (aft.1649-1714), MP for Haslemere 1690-1698 and Winchester 1700-1714,According to the History of Parliament online, Brydges "had secured his fortune at the expense of what remained of his reputation by marriage to the notorious Countess of Shrewsbury, the former lover of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, a domestic rearrangement which entailed his bringing an action in the court of arches for jactitation of marriage against his own previous mistress, .... with whom he had evidently cohabited for some years. The Countess paid £4,500 to buy him a place as groom of the bedchamber." Her second husband was a younger but 2nd surviving son of Sir Thomas Bridges (d.
|
|
A metal plaque on the sidewalk of New York City declares that the crossing onto the private property is a revocable license (an agreement to use the property, not an invasion) to protect it from becoming a subject of an adverse possession. Some New York property owners go even further by actually closing their property to the public for one day each year in order to prove their exclusive control. A disseisor will be committing a civil trespass on the property he has taken and the owner of the property could cause him to be evicted by an action in trespass ("ejectment") or by bringing an action for possession. All common law jurisdictions require that an ejectment action be brought within a specified time, after which the true owner is assumed to have acquiesced.
|
|
The Court of Auditors Prosecutor's Office functionally reports to the Attorney General and is composed of the Chief Prosecutor (member of the Plenum of the Court), and the Prosecuting Attorneys. The Prosecutor of the Court of Auditors is appointed by the Government. The Court of Auditors Prosecutors’ Office is responsible for being heard in audit procedures before final approval and issue its opinion on the General State Accounts and the other reports, memoranda, motions and memos of the Court of Auditors, being able to request the adoption of the measures that it deems appropriate in order to assign liability for the financial responsibilities that may result; take notice of all the audit procedures and court proceedings being dealt with in the Court of Auditors for the purpose of clarifying the possible financial liabilities arising from them and bringing an action for accounting liability and deducting the claims of this nature in the repayment for debtor balance proceedings and in the auditing of accounts.
|
|
The disputes amongst the Scots nobility regarding precedence reached such a height in the reign of James VI that a Royal Commission was appointed by that monarch in 1606 to regulate the matter, and the different peers were invited to produce their Letters Patents, or other evidence, in support of the relative antiquity of their titles. The result was the publication of the noted Decreet of Ranking on 5 March 1606. James, Earl of Glencairn, not having requisite proof at hand, and not being lawfully summoned, did not appear on the occasion; his precedence was, in consequence, unjustly prejudiced, and he was ranked after, instead of before, the Earls of Eglinton, Montrose, Cassillis, and Caithness. Three years afterwards, on 16 June 1609, having been summoned to attend Parliament, Glencairn appeared personally before the Lords of the Privy Council, and stated that he was bringing an Action of Reduction of the said Decreet before the Lords of Council and Session, and produced the original Glencairn Patent of 28 May 1488, requesting that it should be "read in the audience of the Parliament".
|
|