Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 2501 - 2520
of 3,609
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2024, 1:06 am
The DPDI Bill is currently being debated in the House of Lords. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
This Kat posted a short report of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, judgment delivered by Lord Justice Floyd in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 556, and has in the meantime been cogitating and ruminating (hard as that is for a non-ruminant carnivore) on what it all means.To remind readers on where we were before this appeal decision, Warner-Lambert marketed the drug pregabalin for three authorised indications -- epilepsy,… [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 4:04 am
" The judge also noted [still at para 54] how, in light of the decision of the House of Lords in CBS Songs v Amstrad, the ISPs do not owe a common law duty of care [readers who follow the current EU policy debate will note that, while this may be true under common law, the same may be less so or become increasingly less so at the EU level] to Richemont to take reasonable care to ensure that their services are not used by the operators of… [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 7:26 am
What those relevant factors might be is not stated [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 7:06 am
This question, posed in relation to the law of the Bahamas, was recently answered by the Privy Council (Lords Mance, Wilson, Sumption, Carnwath and Sir Kim Lewison) in Gold Rock Limited v Nylund Hylton [2015] UKPC 17. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 10:17 am
The matter went all the way to the House of Lords and was a [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 5:39 am
State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 680-681; see also California Teachers Assn. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
The State’s suggestion, p. 18 pf the reply brief, that the statement’s “primary purpose” is not prosecutorial because it was informal should be rejected on grounds already indicated in Davis v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
The State’s suggestion, p. 18 pf the reply brief, that the statement’s “primary purpose” is not prosecutorial because it was informal should be rejected on grounds already indicated in Davis v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 6:16 am
Zehentner v Austria, a judgment of the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights, demonstrates yet again that the ECHR has a different approach to mandatory rights to possession than the House of Lords has expressed in the trilogy of cases (Buckley, Connors, McCann and Cosic against Qazi, Kay, Doherty). [read post]
8 May 2011, 10:55 pm
Clarke also told the conference that states must “send the best possible judges to serve on the Court. [read post]
3 May 2022, 2:30 am
Lord Carey’s PTO reinstated. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 9:25 am
KF35 v. 59 Congressional Record 7455 (May 21, 1920) Draft of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act amended by George McClellan, December 1920, William E. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 5:42 pm
Co. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 1:40 am
BBC and Dominic Casciani v Secretary of State for Justice High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) [2012] EWHC 13 (Admin) January 11, 2012 High Court rules Justice Secretary’s refusal to grant BBC permission to have a face? [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 2:55 am
See Nico Constantijn Antonius Samara v Stive Jean-Paul Dan [2021] HKCFI 1078[41]; Yan Yu Ying v Leung Wing Hei [2021] HKCFI 3160 and Huobi Asia Limited & Anor v Chen Boliang & Anor [2020] HKCFI 2750. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:15 am
The Court of Human Rights held that the award of £1.5 million to Lord Aldington in respect of a pamphlet alleging that he was a war criminal was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression (see Tolstoy v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442). [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 10:00 am
” The ECtHR in Dudgeon v UK (Application no. 7525/76, Oct. 22, 1981) examined the engagement of Article 8, finding a violation in a Council of Europe member state on the basis of legislation criminalizing sodomy in Northern Ireland. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 4:09 pm
This overrides the orthodox position at common law (as re-affirmed by the House of Lords in Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004), to the effect that each actionable publication of a defamatory statement constitutes a separate tort which must be considered separately when deciding if the English court has jurisdiction to hear a claim about it. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
(The claimant had relied on the requirements in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167 at [19]). [read post]
