Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 2781 - 2800
of 3,575
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2012, 8:10 am
When considering whether The Suicide Act 1961 s 2 was incompatible with ECHR, art 8 it was held that the court was bound by the House of Lords’ decision in Purdy. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 11:21 pm
Certainly—and as I acknowledge in the book—there are places and times in which international human rights law itself has wavered since 9/11 including in the A v United Kingdom decision of the ECtHR—but by and large it has demonstrated more resilience than one might have expected. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 11:10 am
Certainly—and as I acknowledge in the book—there are places and times in which international human rights law itself has wavered since 9/11 including in the A v United Kingdom decision of the ECtHR—but by and large it has demonstrated more resilience than one might have expected. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 9:50 am
“[V]ery serious violent offences” can outweigh an Art 8 claim “even if they were committed by a minor”. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 9:20 am
AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 710 (21 June 2011) ?? [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:00 am
A predecessor to section 41(3) was upheld by the High Court on the grounds that the Oireachtas was entitled to conclude that significant resources would unfairly distort the political marketplace in favour of larger parties, well-established interest groups and major candidates with deep pockets, and against the interests of smaller parties or interest groups and minor candidates lacking in similar resources (Colgan v IRTC [2000] 2 IR 490, [1999] 1 ILRM 22, [1998] IEHC 117 (20 July 1998)),… [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 12:24 pm
One need not even mention Bush v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 6:01 am
Lord Tomlin firmly and unequivocally rejected the very approach that, it will be seen, has won favour with the Supreme Court. [read post]
8 Sep 2024, 12:57 am
I have seen no justification for the alteration of the Faculty of sufficient weight to justify altering the current state of affairs. [28]. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 5:01 am
Lord knows.The Seventh Circuit has now chimed in on a related issue.In Armstrong v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 7:14 am
The Court of Appeal, not known for its strong language, lambasted those same insurers in Lord Justice Longmoor’s judgment which states ‘The facts of this case have revealed that the insurers exhibit an insouciance to their obligations under the Directive and the Regulations which leaves one quite breathless. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 7:14 am
The Court of Appeal, not known for its strong language, lambasted those same insurers in Lord Justice Longmoor’s judgment which states ‘The facts of this case have revealed that the insurers exhibit an insouciance to their obligations under the Directive and the Regulations which leaves one quite breathless. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 10:33 pm
AND MARPER v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 6:48 pm
Toth v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 5:50 pm
Responses to the Proposal In the report by Professor Mullis and Dr Scott “Something Rotten in the State of English Libel Law? [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 9:21 am
Lord, Williston on Contracts § 70:219 (4th ed. 1990). [read post]
6 May 2012, 2:41 am
David Richards J held that this would therefore have involved a significant departures from two fundamental common law principles: first, the principle of open justice requires that trials are conducted in public; and, second, the principle of natural justice includes the right of a party to know the case against him and the evidence on which it is based (relying on Al Rawi v The Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 (13 July 2011) [10]-[13] (Lord Dyson); and later, in respect of open… [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 6:13 pm
In 1996, she wrote the decision in United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
See, e.g., Lochner v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 7:00 am
• Thomas V. [read post]
