Search for: "HALE v. STATE"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,075
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2019, 9:27 am
Lady Hale and Lord Kerr both gave dissenting judgments (Lady Hale as to outcome, though she agreed with Lord Wilson on the relevant legal principles to be applied; Lord Kerr dissented both on outcome and on the legal approach taken, specifically on the relevant test to be applied by the courts when considering the proportionality of a measure; though both agreed with certain parts of Lord Wilson’s judgment). [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 1:00 am
Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 1:00 am
Paten v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
2 Jun 2019, 6:25 am
First, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s revised decision in United States v. [read post]
24 May 2019, 2:00 am
One such limitation is the inability of one State to hale another into its courts without the latter’s consent. [read post]
23 May 2019, 4:26 am
The justices were also divided as to how to answer this question, with Lord Kerr and Lady Hale agreeing with Lord Carnwath; Lords Lloyd-Jones, Reed and Sumption declining to give a view; and Lord Wilson dissenting. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:58 pm
The justices were also divided as to how to answer this question, with Lord Kerr and Lady Hale agreeing with Lord Carnwath; Lords Lloyd-Jones, Reed and Sumption declining to give a view; and Lord Wilson dissenting. [read post]
15 May 2019, 9:06 pm
The agency, however, has reclassified FDA-Approved drugs that contain less than 0.1 percent CBD as Schedule V drugs—an apparent carve out for Epidolex. [read post]
15 May 2019, 2:57 am
Dissenting, Lady Hale agreed with the principles discussed by Lord Wilson, but held that the Government failed to strike a fair balance between the very limited public benefits of the cap and the severe damage done to the family lives of young children and their lone parents. [read post]
14 May 2019, 10:57 am
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
13 May 2019, 3:51 pm
Hyatt, overruling Nevada v. [read post]
13 May 2019, 4:41 am
With respect to due process, “[a] non-domiciliary tortfeasor has minimum contacts with the forum State . . . if it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” (LaMarca, 95 NY2d at 216 [internal quotations marks and citations omitted]),“thus invoking the benefits and protections of [the forum state’s] laws” (Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 253 [1958]). [read post]
13 May 2019, 1:00 am
Paten v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
10 May 2019, 4:48 pm
These cases range from ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4 (an immigration case) and ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 439 through to PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 2:22 am
The Supreme Court Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Arden dismissed the appeal on both points. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 9:30 pm
Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex parte Shah (1999) Nora Honkala72. [read post]
6 Apr 2019, 9:46 am
Katfriend Nicoletta Epaminonda takes a loot at the Cypriot transposition of the Trade Mark Directive 2015/2436 and reflects on what the future might hold for trade marks in this Member State. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 9:32 am
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT The Supreme Court composed of President Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge and Lord Briggs unanimously dismissed the appeal. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 6:19 am
Citing Hale v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:08 am
Giving the leading judgment, Lord Kerr (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Hodge and Lady Black agreed) allowed the appeal on the basis that there had been a breach of the investigative obligation under ECHR, art 2. [read post]
