Search for: "Kerr v. State"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,967
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2019, 1:05 pm
It provides a shield for individuals from arbitrary state action. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:09 am
”) Lord Kerr, like Stephens J at first instance, noted that that was not an immutable requirement as the ECtHR had stated in Mocanu v Romania (10865/09) (2015) 60 EHRR 19 (Paras 107-108 of Lord Kerr’s judgment) and as the Supreme Court had found in McCaughey’s case (See paras 118, 119 and, in particular, 139 of McCaughey’s case). [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:08 am
” (Quoted in para 44 (v) of Lord Kerr’s judgment) In the event a decision was made on 11 July 2011 that a public inquiry would not be conducted. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 3:05 am
Before United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 9:29 am
I blogged about this case last year, and now I've filed a cert petition in the case.I recently wrote a long and detailed blog post about a new Fourth Amendment case from the Nebraska Supreme Court, State v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 2:00 am
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze, heard 12-13 Mar 2019. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 1:00 am
Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 15 Nov 2018. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 4:44 pm
Kerr, “Legacies: A Matter of some Interest” (1997), 16 E. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 3:05 pm
In United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 2:37 am
The concept is still rather wooly, but the approach remains that of Lord Bingham in M v Secretary of States for Work and Pensions [2006] 2 AC 91, encapsulated by Lady Hale as “the closer the facts come to the protection of the core values of the substantive article, the more likely it is that they fall within its ambit. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 2:48 am
Lord Kerr gave a separate judgment, disagreeing with the majority’s approach to the legality test and its application of the proportionality test. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 2:48 am
Lord Reed and Lord Kerr dissented stating that the critical factors in the ECtHR decision of Allen should have been followed and consequently it is necessary for the Secretary of State to examine the judgment of the Court of Appeal to determine whether the criteria of s 133 were satisfied. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 4:19 pm
On 24 January 2019 the UK Supreme Court (Lords Reed and Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) will hear the appeal in the case of Stocker v Stocker. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 1:31 am
Today, 24 January 2019, five Supreme Court judges (Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) will hear Stocker v Stocker UKSC 2018/0045, an appeal against the 12 February 2018 Court of Appeal decision of Lady Justice Sharp, with whom Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir John Laws concurred ([2018] EWCA Civ 170). [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 12:08 am
Today, 24 January 2019, five Supreme Court judges (Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) will hear Stocker v Stocker UKSC 2018/0045, an appeal against the 12 February 2018 Court of Appeal decision of Lady Justice Sharp, with whom Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir John Laws concurred ([2018] EWCA Civ 170). [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 9:14 pm
The new ruling, United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 4:05 pm
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 4:48 pm
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:11 am
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 1:00 am
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
