Laramie River litigation; a compilation of opinions and decrees of the United States Supreme Court and opinions, decrees and orders of the Colorado Supreme Court and of the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado, together with chronology, citations of opinions and decrees and a summary statement.

Mode of access: Internet.

AIDS litigation project /

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Recognition of contingent liabilities arising from litigation : an amendment of SFFAS no. 5, Accounting for liabilities of the federal government /

"February 5, 1999."

Highway condemnation law and litigation in the United States.

"Contract CPR 11-8002."

Proceedings of the Attorney General's Conference on Court Congestion and Delay in Litigation : held at the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., May 21 and 22, 1956.

Mode of access: Internet.

Litigation relating to atomic testing : hearings before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1338 ... October 2 and 3, 1985.

Mode of access: Internet.

Athenian clubs in politics and litigation ...

"Reprinted from the University of Texas bulletin, Austin, 1913.

Preparation manual for aviation negligence cases : compendium of regulations, practices and sources of evidence for attorneys engaged in litigation arising out of aviation accidents /

Mode of access: Internet.

Pace of Civil Litigation in the Queensland Supreme Court

The overriding philosophy of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 in Queensland is to facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the issues in a civil proceeding at minimum expense. The court is enjoined to apply the rules to avoid undue delay, expense and technicality. Parties impliedly undertake to the court and each other to proceed expeditiously. These rules adopt management theories developed to contain delay and cost in the civil justice system. A survey was designed to determine whether the overriding objective is being achieved in practice. The results indicate a reduction in the time from initiation of a proceeding to termination as compared to a sample of similar cases determined under the repealed Rules of the Supreme Court.

Why does tax have to be so taxing? The Court revisits the Franked Investment Income litigation

Examines the European Court of Justice ruling in Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Inland Revenue Commissioners (C-35/11) on whether the differential tax treatment of domestic and foreign-sourced dividends in the UK was compatible with the freedom of establishment and free movement of capital principles. Outlines its guidance on how to assess this compatibility. Considers the ruling's implications for the UK tax system, the relationship between tax sovereignty and the internal market and the third-country dimension of the free movement of capital principle.

PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS IN LITIGATION - THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE EU TRADE SECRET DIRECTIVE ESPECIALLY ON FINNISH LAW

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Protecting Trade Secrets In Litigation The Impact of Article 9 of The EU Trade Secret Directive Especially on Finnish Law

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.