Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2061 - 2080
of 3,575
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jan 2008, 6:09 am
Regardless whether a particular jurisdiction is a "notice/prejudice" state, see Prince Georges Cty. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 7:08 am
The case at issue was an opposition to an application of a mark combining the sign “V” with words “Valentino Rudi” by the Italian high end fashion company Valentino. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 7:16 am
Distinguishing the House of Lords decision in Denny-Mott and Dixon v James Fraser and Co [1944] A.C. 265, the judge held that the contract between the Club and IRISL was to provide indemnity insurance and that “[p]art of that purpose remained lawful. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 2:44 am
R (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC & Ors) v SSHD, heard 13 May 2014. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 1:58 am
R (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC & Ors) v SSHD, heard 13 May 2014. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 12:37 am
The defendants were convicted on a majority verdict of 10 to 2; their appeal went all the way to the House of Lords and was dismissed: Whitehouse v Lemon and Gay News Ltd [1979] AC 617. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII) [71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 8:29 am
On October 8, in Warger v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 8:49 am
In Warger v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 12:00 am
Investment Corp. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 4:30 am
In Fisher v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 4:53 am
Article 57 states that an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 2:42 pm
In this context, we should do well to remember the caution sounded by Lord Scarman in Quazi v. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:00 am
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 8:24 am
The case was heard before Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lady Black and Lord Lloyd-Jones on 18 Oct 2017. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 9:41 am
Perhaps this is especially so as both cases had been heard by the House of Lords, applying the ECHR, and in both instances the source of the human rights violation was primary legislation (i.e. ostensibly the matter had been fully debated by Parliament). [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm
However, in principle, the question of negligence is a matter for the Claimants to establish but the question of inevitability is, as stated in Manchester Corp v Farnworth for Thames Water to establish. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 9:39 am
(Lord Evershed, M. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am
On the first day Pill LJ ruled that the evidence from the recent “Panorama” programme about Lord Ashcroft was inadmi [read post]
