Search for: "V. B."
Results 1 - 20
of 61,941
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2008, 5:01 am
B v B [2008] EWCA Civ 543; [2008] WLR (D) 90 “In ancillary relief cases the source and origin of assets was one of the factors that had to be taken into account in determining distribution since the primary objectives of the exercise were fairness and an absence of discrimination between the parties. [read post]
15 Apr 2018, 4:31 pm
Matter of B. v J. 2018, NY Slip Op. 02148 L.B., Petitioner, Respondent. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 7:48 am
The case of B v B [2012] EWHC 1924 (Fam), decided today, contains another judicial warning upon the preparation of court bundles. [read post]
15 Apr 2018, 4:31 pm
Matter of B. v J. 2018, NY Slip Op. 02148 L.B., Petitioner, Respondent. [read post]
30 Apr 2008, 2:42 am
B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets) Court of Appeal “The source and origin of assets should be taken into account in considering ancillary relief since the primary objectives were fairness and an absence of discrimination between the parties. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 4:57 pm
The master of the F/V STORMIE B called watchstanders at the U.S. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 3:31 am
Regina v A (B) [2012] EWCA Crim 1529; [2012] WLR (D) 199 “Whether an offence charged involved an assault on, or injury or threat of injury to, the spouse or civil partner of the person charged, so that the spouse or civil partner was a compellable witness under section 80(2A)(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, was to be determined solely by reference to the terms of the indictment and not by reference to the evidence to be adduced about the circumstances of the… [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 1:31 am
R v T; R v B; R v C; R v H [2009] EWCA Crim 1035; [2009] WLR (D) 19 “A criminal trial without a jury did not contravene a defendant's right to a fair trial where there was a real danger of jury tampering and proposed measures to prevent such interference did not sufficiently address [...] [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 7:08 am
JACKSON v. [read post]
17 May 2007, 4:50 am
M; Regina v. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 6:07 am
HARGRAVE v. [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 5:37 am
The post MOISES B. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 2:15 am
Check out this video, B-School Guy v. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 2:15 am
Check out this video, B-School Guy v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 3:52 am
., B. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 2:08 pm
CLASS B OUI BASED ON PRIOR MANSLAUGHTER, STATE V. [read post]
7 Jan 2024, 2:35 pm
M. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 7:59 am
ERICH v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 3:26 am
B&B v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 2:38 am
Regina v B (F); Same v P (A); Same v C (J) [2010] EWCA Crim 1857; [2010] WLR (D) 21 “A judge sitting in the Crown Court had no power to quash an indictment simply because he did not believe that the proceedings were appropriately brought or were not in the public interest when compared with his assessment of the needs of other cases and that had not changed as a result of the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010. [read post]