Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2721 - 2740
of 4,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
If that were the intention, one would have expected it to have been stated expressly. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 11:46 am
V. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 3:37 am
The UK is a unitary state, not a federation. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
The bottom-line is that this does appear to be a chance for people who were treated unfairly as part of the foreclosure process (and Lord knows there are plenty who fall into that category) to get a shot at some justice, and potentially be compensated for losses resulting from the unfair treatment. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 12:30 am
The judge was also unimpressed by the appellants’ evidence, stating that David Gale and Teresa had lied repeatedly to the court. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 12:57 pm
Under this heading, Lord Neuberger recounted the intervention of the BioIndustry Association (BIA), which was stated to represent members with an aggregate turnover in 2010 of £5.5 billion. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 12:40 pm
Sections 35 and 35A have been considered recently by this Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 4:53 am
Article 57 states that an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 12:19 pm
SUPREME COURT Gideon v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:00 am
The case of the day is United States v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:42 am
On Friday 4 November the matter of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor will be heard in Courtroom 2 by Lady Hale and Lords Brown, Mance, Kerr and Wilson. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 1:30 am
[Update] On Friday 4 November 2011, the Administrative Court (Elias LJ and King J) will hear an application for permission in the judicial review case of R (Decoulos) v Lord Justice Leveson. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 2:42 pm
In this context, we should do well to remember the caution sounded by Lord Scarman in Quazi v. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 5:04 am
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court (Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson) released its decision in the joined cases of R (Davies & Anor) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and R (Gaines-Cooper) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2011] UKSC 47. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 5:04 am
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court (Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson) released its decision in the joined cases of R (Davies & Anor) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and R (Gaines-Cooper) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2011] UKSC 47. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
App. 2008) (“[t]here can be no proximate cause where, as in this case, the prescribing physician did not read or rely upon the allegedly inadequate warnings promulgated by a defendant about a product”); Lord v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 9:41 am
Perhaps this is especially so as both cases had been heard by the House of Lords, applying the ECHR, and in both instances the source of the human rights violation was primary legislation (i.e. ostensibly the matter had been fully debated by Parliament). [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 5:09 am
In balancing these two rights, Tugendhat J had in mind the “ultimate balancing test” as referred to by Lord Steyn Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 (at para 17) and guidance from Lord Bingham in R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247 (at para 26) that interference of the ECHR right must not be stricter than necessary to achieve the state’s legitimate aim. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
In balancing these two rights, Tugendhat J had in mind the “ultimate balancing test” as referred to by Lord Steyn Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 (at para 17) and guidance from Lord Bingham in R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247 (at para 26) that interference of the ECHR right must not be stricter than necessary to achieve the state’s legitimate aim. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 4:31 am
Lord Eassie went on to state at para. 48 of the Court’s judgment: “. . . we for our part do not see any reason why in ordinary, contemporary English usage ‘leave’ in this context should not simply connote a period in which the employee is free from work commitment. [read post]
