Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2541 - 2560
of 3,575
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2012, 2:53 am
Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding: Woodrow v Johansson, heard 19 January 2012 (HHJ Parkes QC) Miller v Associated Newspapers heard 21 to 25 May 2012 (Sharp J) SKA v CRH, heard 10 and 11 July 2012 (Nicola Davies J) Lord Ashcroft v Foley heard 20 July 2012 (Eady J) [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
At para. 49, Rothstein J unequivocally stated that “there is only one standard of proof and that is proof on a balance of probabilities. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 1:29 am
”John Thorpe MP put the State firmly ahead of the individual:“… In my view the State is in great danger, and no power which would tend to protect it should be withheld from the Government. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 1:39 am
Lord Cooke of Thorndon stated that his admiration for the Indian Courts (mainly the Supreme Court) in its ordinary work, particularly in the field of human rights, is no whit abated. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 1:39 am
Lord Cooke of Thorndon stated that his admiration for the Indian Courts (mainly the Supreme Court) in its ordinary work, particularly in the field of human rights, is no whit abated. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 1:39 am
Lord Cooke of Thorndon stated that his admiration for the Indian Courts (mainly the Supreme Court) in its ordinary work, particularly in the field of human rights, is no whit abated. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
The Lord said, “I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 1:13 pm
United States, 12-223, and Pleau v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 10:31 pm
[as quoted in Williamson v. [read post]
29 May 2010, 4:18 am
In the UK judgment in Campbell v MGN – the seminal case that effectively launched privacy actions in the UK – the publishers at Mirror Group Newspapers may ultimately have gone down in the House of Lords on a 3:2 majority, but there was no question that they could possibly ‘go down’ in the criminal sense. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 11:40 am
Topics this month include:Top StoriesUS v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 6:52 am
Proceedings of the Electoral Commission and of the Two Houses of Congress in Joint Meeting Relative to the Count of Electoral Votes Cast December 6, 1876, for the Presidential Term
Commencing March 4, 1877
1 v. (1877) United States. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:30 am
In Flux v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
In particular, Lord Justice Floyd in the IPCom case cited by AbbVie held that English judges should have the discretion to refuse a stay of national proceedings given that the EPO opposition procedure can take many years to resolve. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 4:30 pm
The second day of the House of Lords Data Protection Bill Committee Stage takes place in the House of Lords on 6 November 2017. [read post]
30 May 2010, 2:08 pm
Lord Lester continues his energetic media campaign with an article in the Sunday Times about the Bill. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 6:30 am
First, there is a lot of new material regarding the “loyal denominator” issue (see here and here): whether the former Confederate states were to be included in the Article V total of states of which three fourths were required to ratify an amendment, or whether (as I think) only three fourths of the states represented in Congress were required, because rebel states’ Article V naysaying power, like their Article I right to be… [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 7:59 am
SSHD, Lord Kerr stated, “in reaching decisions that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her best interests. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 7:59 am
SSHD, Lord Kerr stated, “in reaching decisions that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her best interests. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 4:53 am
The CPS view was that the observations of Lord Woolf were correct, and accorded with the rationale of the prohibition in section 1 (1). [read post]
