Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. [1] The use of leading questions in court to elicit testimony is restricted in order to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented.
Case Method of Revelation RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd : Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, had tabled a parliamentary question revealing the existence of the injunction. [15] Ntuli v Donald: A super-injunction was granted but later dischargd. [6] DFT v TFD: A super-injunction was granted but later discontinued. [16]
Injunctions in English law are a legal remedy of three types. Prohibitory injunctions prevent an individual or group from beginning or continuing actions which threaten or breach the legal rights of another. Mandatory injunctions are rarer and compel a person to carry out a certain act such as make restitution to an injured party.
To avoid the problem, there are two rules. Res judicata provides that once a case has been determined, it produces a judgment either inter partes or in rem depending on the subject matter of the dispute: although there can be an appeal on the merits, neither party can recommence proceedings on the same set of facts in another court. If that ...
An injunction can require someone to do something, like clean up an oil spill or remove a spite fence. Or it can prohibit someone from doing something, like using an illegally obtained trade secret. An injunction that requires conduct is called a "mandatory injunction." An injunction that prohibits conduct is called a "prohibitory injunction."
That case is on final judgement out of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court could consider at their Dec. 13 conference whether to take the case.. Show comments
Supreme Court moves to delay ban. The highest court in the United States could issue a temporary injunction before Sunday to uphold the law while preventing the ban from taking effect.
The appeal court thus ordered a preliminary injunction, forcing Philips to bar sales of Munchkin for the duration of the case. Philips attempted to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear the case, by which point Philips had already published a sequel.