Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2601 - 2620
of 4,051
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2010, 1:39 am
Petsafe Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 2908 (Admin) (16 November 2010) - ? [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 6:17 pm
To evoke Lord Sankey’s celebrated phrase in Edwards v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:42 am
There follows a succinct account of Strasbourg jurisprudence on this point, from registration of a doctor Konig v Germany (No1) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 170 (civil right) to liability to tax (not a civil right) (Ferrazini v Italy (44759/98) (2001) STC 1314), via the all important decision in Pellegrin v France (2001) 31 EHRR 26 ECHR not to allow administrative servants the guarantees of Article 6 because their employment involves important… [read post]
11 Mar 2023, 4:38 am
The problem with vagueness was spelt out by the House of Lords in R v Rimmington, citing the US case of Grayned: "Vagueness offends several important values … A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 7:51 am
ShareThe current Supreme Court is undoubtedly pro-arbitration – but after Monday’s oral argument in Morgan v. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 7:32 pm
The Court formulated the 3-part test that is still used today, which was itself imported from the House of Lords, The three‑part American Cyanamid test (adopted in Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. [read post]
30 Oct 2007, 11:47 pm
Roberts' stated preference for unanimity, and thus did she defend the 2 instances last Term (1, about which we've posted, was the abortion case Gonzales v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 2:45 am
Lucy has the exciting details.In other news, the Law Society Gazette reports the comments of the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger in the Ambrosiadou v Coward case last week, that court hearings should not be private. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 5:00 am
ASIL has published an Insight (.pdf) about the recent ICJ decision in Belgium v. [read post]
8 Oct 2018, 4:05 pm
An appeal against a decision of Langstaff J [2018] 3 WLR 691 17 or 18 October 2018, Butt v The Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 10:29 am
The approach in law is that set out by Lord Steyn in Re S and in respect of the requirement for ‘compelling reasons’ the judgment in A v Ward must be regarded as per incuriam and should not be followed. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 9:01 pm
Johnson and United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
(Nadarajah v Secretary of State[2005] EWCA Civ 1363) Whether a promise should be honoured depends upon the respective force of the competing interests in the case. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 6:02 am
Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U.S. 659 (1895). [10] In the paper, I expand on Judge Taranto’s and Professors Duffy and Hynes’ arguments that Justice Breyer’s citation to Lord Coke’s 1628 Institutes in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 2:17 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 03/03/23) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter, heard 14th June 2022 R (on the application of VIP… [read post]
22 Nov 2020, 4:09 pm
The Society of Editors had a piece “Remote access to court hearings likely to take “one step back” confirms Lord Chief Justice”. [read post]
4 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Last month, Judge Green of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Crest v. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm
Associated sought to quash a decision by Lord Justice Leveson to receive anonymous evidence from journalists in the week commencing 25 January 2012. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 7:38 pm
Against the background of the Provimi judgment (Provimi Ltd v. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 2:52 pm
Sedley LJ and Lord Clarke MR agreed with Rix LJ, but Sedley LJ expressed some dissatisfaction with this case. [read post]
