Search for: "Matter of Kerr v Kerr"
Results 241 - 260
of 878
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
The hand down panel will be Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 2:28 pm
To cut to the chase (and omit the first hundred or so paragraphs), following Lord Kerr in A v Essex County Council (National Autistic Society intervening) [2011] AC 280; [2010] UKSC 33 the High Court found that a failure to take steps to provide education when the state authority responsible for providing it is aware of the absence of the pupil from any form of education could in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the right. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 7:03 am
See the Supreme Court decision on this, posted by Rosalind English, which brought the whole matter to light. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:09 am
Although found to be an “important consideration” when assessing proportionality, and a matter which affects the weight to be attached to family life, the court does not clearly explain the circumstances in which family life will be precarious. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 1:37 pm
Whether that remains the law is open right now, thanks to the recent grant in Carpenter v. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 12:30 pm
Only the rights of the recipient/holder of the information matter. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 8:06 am
R (o.t.a A and B) v. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 12:32 pm
V. [read post]
24 May 2017, 1:57 pm
Knotts and United States v. [read post]
23 May 2017, 2:34 pm
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in United States v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 4:10 am
” At the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr flags a cert petition that raises the question of “whether the voluntariness of consent to search or seize under the Fourth Amendment should be treated as a matter of fact or a question of law for purposes of the standard of review on appeal. [read post]
18 May 2017, 8:00 am
Compare United States v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 5:26 am
Consider Justice Antonin Scalia's words in dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
8 May 2017, 9:06 am
Lord Kerr, dissenting on that aspect, pointed to decisions such as Zenati v MPC [2015] QB 758 (in which a dilatory decision to discontinue a false passport prosecution engaged Article 5 rights) and Norris v USA #2 [2010] 2 AC 487 (obiter dicta concerning the applicability of art 8 regarding detention for the purpose of prosecution). [read post]
1 May 2017, 5:00 am
One of the paradigm examples of “continuity v. change” in The Innovator’s Dilemma, and the example whose aftermath I’ve witnessed for the last 20 years, is the integrated structural steel industry in the US, headquartered in Pittsburgh. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 9:00 am
Tronox, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 3:12 am
In R (E & Ors) v DPP [2011] EWHC 1465, Munby LJ observed an unmistakable absence of any reported case holding that art 8 could be used to challenge criminal proceedings for a matter falling squarely within the criminal law. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 3:12 am
Iriwn J dismissed the claim because presenting an immigration officer with false papers was not an activity that formed part of SXH’s private life, but was self-evidently a matter affecting the business of the state. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 2:00 am
The court accepted the submission that these materials could not be interpreted to mean that the European legislature intended that member states should be required to recognise overseas adoptions as a matter of course, irrespective of the quality of the procedures followed. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 1:30 pm
In a new case, Alexander v. [read post]
