Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2321 - 2340
of 4,051
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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 2017, 5:29 pm
Investment Corp. v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 10:00 pm
Famous examples are R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326 , R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2010] 1 AC 410 and Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:41 pm
R (Medihani) v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 4:00 am
This reluctance has been captured by an admonition credited to Lord Denning about the importance of a judge not conducting the examination of witnesses because “he, so to speak, descends into the arena and is liable to have his vision clouded by the dust of conflict …” (Lord Denning was quoting Lord Greene MR, in Yuill v Yuill [1945] P 15, 20.) [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]
22 Jan 2014, 12:43 pm
Scott Lane is a plaintiff in the ACLU's case Lane v. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
For example, in the course of negotiations over the Scotland Act, Lord Sewel stated in the House of Lords that the Westminster Parliament “would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 1:14 am
For example, in Herbai v Hungary the Strasbourg Court held that the state had a positive obligation under Article 10 to secure an employee’s right of freedom of expression as against their private sector employer. [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]
23 Apr 2018, 1:00 am
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [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]
6 Mar 2012, 1:05 am
Fine, although the draft Declaration states that, against that background, “the role of the Court is to [merely?] [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]
21 Feb 2007, 9:39 am
(Lord Evershed, M. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 1:00 am
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]
