Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 2841 - 2860
of 3,609
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2010, 7:53 am
United States—the “honest services” case—has “no impact whatsoever” on its prosecution of Ring. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 5:31 am
(Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law) United States US General iSlate, iTablet, IP! [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 4:02 pm
Lord Dyson, who was first appointed a judge in 1993. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 7:29 pm
Kamins was the lead plaintiff in the case, Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 6:22 am
This would put us at odds with every other civilised state. [read post]
15 Jan 2023, 1:28 am
The court held that the display violated the separation of church and state and gave the municipality six months to remove it. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 12:21 am
Kamins was the lead plaintiff in the case, Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 4:36 pm
” At paragraph 14 of Lachaux, Lord Sumption stated:- “section 1 necessarily means that a statement which would previously have been regarded as defamatory, because of its inherent tendency to cause some harm to reputation, is not to be so regarded unless it “has caused or is likely to cause” harm which is “serious”. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 7:48 am
Caslavsky, 45 B.C.A.C. 62, and stated the following: A more recent case from this Court along similar lines is Brucks et al. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 2:51 am
Media and Freedom of Expression Law in Other Jurisdictions The Tasmanian case of Burch v Parkinson ([2010] TASSC 42) concerned third party indemnity proceedings against the State of Tasmania. [read post]
14 Oct 2021, 7:07 am
However, up to the Courts decision in NCAA v. [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 3:24 pm
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed RP’s claims and refused leave of appeal to the House of Lords. [read post]
16 Feb 2020, 4:52 pm
Resolved – IPSO mediation 08369-19 Miller v The Sunday Times, No breach – after investigation Resolution statement 07779-19 Wallace v Echo (Basildon), Resolved – IPSO mediation 07037-19 Foley v Mail Online, No breach – after investigation 06303-19 Hoy v Wisbech Standard, No breach – after investigation 06056-19 Baker v The Daily Telegraph, Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication 05072-19 Smith v… [read post]
4 Jun 2022, 5:25 pm
This means a perfect state of security would lead to worse security than would a state where cybersecurity periodically fails. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 9:00 am
Grand jury subpoenas, unlike trial subpoenas, may be served nationwide: there are geographical limitations within the United States. [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:31 am
On Thursday 12 May 2011, the Administrative Court will hear the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review by Lord Prescott, Chris Bryant MP and others (Queen (on the application of Bryant and ors) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis). [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 9:47 pm
Lord Justice May stated: “When Costings Limited conducted the costs assessment hearing, their rights of audience rested on a fiction that they were employed by the solicitors and derived from section 27(2)(e) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 10:55 pm
As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said in his speech: [I]n our country, which is governed by the rule of law, upheld by an independent judiciary, the confidentiality principle is … subject to the clear limitation that the government and the intelligence services can never provide the country which provides intelligence with an unconditional guarantee that the confidentiality principle will never be set aside if the courts conclude that the interests of justice make it… [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
Third, the Manual authors state that the doubling argument assumes the “[n]onacceleration of disease. [read post]
Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on, Part 1, Sections 1 to 3 – Brett Wilson LLP
28 Jan 2020, 4:39 pm
According to Lord Sumption, in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 27, the Act sought ‘to modify some of the common law rules which were seen unduly to favour the protection of reputation at the expense of freedom of expression’. [read post]
