Search for: "Chambers v State" Results 321 - 340 of 5,332
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2023, 8:13 am by Krzysztof Pacula
Written by Zuzanna Nowicka, lawyer at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and lecturer at Department of Logic and Legal Argumentation at University of Warsaw In the aftermath of the judgment of the ICJ of 2012 in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. [read post]
8 May 2023, 4:45 pm by INFORRM
Mr Hay sued in libel, stating that the publications had caused serious damage to his reputation and that he had lost bookings as a self-employed tattooist as a result. [read post]
8 May 2023, 12:22 am by INFORRM
  There was a case preview on the Doughty Street Chambers website and a piece in the Guardian. [read post]
6 May 2023, 1:03 am by INFORRM
Ian Helme is a barrister at Matrix Chambers and the head of Matrix’s Data Protection Group. [read post]
4 May 2023, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
 By Eric SegallTwenty years ago, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the following in Grutter v. [read post]
2 May 2023, 12:30 am by David Pocklington
John the Evangelist Killingworth, supra, in which the Chancellor stated: “[53]. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 8:29 am by John Elwood
United States, 21-8190Issue: Whether this Court should overturn its decision in United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 6:05 am by Leila Nadya Sadat
This was the position taken by the ICC Appeals Chamber in Al-Bashir, by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the Taylor case, and by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Milosevic case, and is the scenario envisaged by paragraph 61 of the ICJ’s judgment in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 6:00 am by William C. MacLeod and Darby Hobbs
Chair Rodgers also noted the retreat from imposing undue burdens, stating that it removed guardrails essential to good governance. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 12:54 pm by John Elwood
United States, 21-8190 Issue: Whether this Court should overturn its decision in United States v. [read post]