Search for: "Hughes v. State"
Results 241 - 260
of 1,795
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2020, 1:13 am
It was a misdirection to say one needed to broadly compensate each individual. 1209: Ms Demetriou QC says it is clear that the Tribunal saw there as being a governing principle that individual claimants must be restored to position they would have been in but for the infringement, which is wrong as a matter of statutory construction. 1202: Ms Demetriou QC states that the compensatory principle is not irrelevant at distribution stage, but it is not a statutory requirement. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 4:24 pm
The court found that the comments concerning the drug use of Ms Rubio’s boyfriend, R.B., had related solely to the state of their relationship and had not alleged that Ms Rubio had incited him directly to take drugs. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 1:05 am
Lord Hughes states that the acid test should be whether the application is in substance (impermissibly) to vary or alter the final order or whether it is (permissibly) to support it by working out how it should be carried into effect [54]. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 8:16 am
The previous leading authority on “white list” designation was R (Javed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 789. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 2:45 am
Bastien v. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 4:05 pm
In the case of Milosavljević v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 1:02 am
Mr Harris QC stated before the Tribunal that only [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 4:50 pm
Yueng v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 1:58 am
© Hugh Stephens, 2020. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
Of interest to constitutional lawyers, the Court embarked upon a detailed consideration of an earlier decision in Quark Fishing Ltd v UK, App. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 1:01 am
In NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 11:10 am
Hughes explained: It cannot be doubted that the power to provide for extradition is a national power; it pertains to the national government, and not to the states. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 4:10 pm
In the case of Ewing v Crown Court sitting at Cardiff and Newport ([2016] EWHC 183 (Admin)) confirms an important feature of the open justice principle: that permission is not needed in order to take notes in Court. [read post]
24 Mar 2007, 8:45 pm
Miles Medical Co. v. [read post]
5 May 2016, 7:45 am
The controversy over the Second Bank of the United States, ostensibly settled in McCullough v. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 1:20 pm
Last, but not least, Hugh Stephens reports on his blog (Hugh Stephens Blog) how harmful are the Remote Access Trojans (RATs), which are sometimes embedded in websites offering pirated goods. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 10:00 am
By Hugh B. [read post]
25 Oct 2006, 5:11 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 4:04 pm
Previously, he had headed a State-owned company. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 8:51 am
Pt. 10 1/24/22 19-1401 Hughes v. [read post]
