Search for: "United States v. Lord"
Results 321 - 340
of 1,509
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2020, 4:40 am
Schedule 6 applies the provisions of the Maintenance Regulation to the allocation of jurisdiction for intra-state cases within the United Kingdom relating to maintenance. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 11:15 pm
J M v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:20 pm
The Trust argued that the reasoning in Osman v United Kingdom (23452/94) (1999) 1 FLR 193 ECHR was not applicable to the care of hospital patients. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 3:26 am
Lord Hope gave the leading judgment, and explained why the discrimination was justified: the Secretary of State’s purpose was to protect the resources of the United Kingdom against resort to benefit, or social tourism by persons who are not economically or socially integrated with this country. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:43 am
The Court of Appeal decision The Court of Appeal reviewed a number of authorities on the meaning of “house”, including Lake v Bennett [1970] 1 Q.B. 663, Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes [1982] A.C. 755, Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd [2008] 1 W.L.R. 289, (where the House of Lords held that, when deciding whether a building had been designed or adapted for living in, one is largely concerned with the physical state of… [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
United States The Cyberlaw Clinic reports that it has filed an amicus curiae brief (.pdf) in the United States Supreme Court in Oracle v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Susan Illston, Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California Aton Arbisser, Kaye Scholer LLP Elizabeth J. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 6:00 pm
We cannot regard that as a satisfactory situation, or think that such a result was ever intended by those who drafted the Scotland Bill 1998 or the United Kingdom Parliament which passed it. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 12:27 pm
Members of the House & Senate of the United States, 2012 WL 5430962 (M.D. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 9:30 pm
Jack Rakove, Randy Barnett and others on how the Supreme Court is shaping the United States (BBC). [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 9:30 pm
The bill broke with tradition in Britain and the empire, as it included provisions from the bill of rights of the United States. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:49 am
Justice Clark read his opinion for the Court in United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 10:43 pm
While a few regulatory decisions are still outstanding, the Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard merger review process now comes down to the United Kingdom and the United States. [read post]
10 Jan 2010, 7:14 am
Underpinning the decision in this case are two key cases, N v Home Secretary [2005] UKHL 31 and D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
In Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) the Strasbourg Court held that this inability of the English law to recognise and give effect to a change of gender through gender re-assignment surgery was a violation of a person’s Article 8 rights. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:50 am
Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, per Lord Steyn). [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 3:47 am
As was stated by Lord Justice Gibson in Asprey & Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd: "...the defence has never been held to apply to names of new companies as otherwise a route to piracy would be obvious". [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 1:26 am
In the United States, under various State legislation, an individual's personality or persona can be protected; something that isn't protectable per say under UK legislation.Some faces are just made for t-shirtsNevertheless, the protection offered under passing off can potentially extend to individuals, at least on a prima facie application of the requisite elements: there has to be goodwill associated with that individual; a misrepresentation as to that goodwill… [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:54 am
(See United States v. [read post]
28 May 2008, 6:37 am
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on May 27 in N v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 26565/05, that the United Kingdom's demand that a Ugandan woman living with AIDS return to her home country does not violate the U.K.'s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
