Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3441 - 3460
of 4,048
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2010, 12:47 am
Since July 5 is X-Day, this Blawg Review will reflect upon the Church of the SubGenius.TM If you are already celebrating X-Day, congratulations. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 11:29 pm
“ He says of the decision in JR17: And yet in its decision of 23 June 2010 in the Northern Ireland appeal JR 17 [2010] UKSC 27, the UK Supreme Court refers to and relies upon Lord Bingham’s approach in Ali v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 10:08 pm
So all member state courts, however humble, can determine matters of EU law, a state of affairs which in Lord Neuberger’s words “has important consequences. [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]
5 Jul 2010, 3:30 am
Since July 5 is X-Day, this Blawg Review will reflect upon the Church of the SubGenius.TM If you are already celebrating X-Day, congratulations. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 2:03 pm
It is arguable that Article 10 places the state under a positive obligation to provide such access. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 10:00 pm
Regina v Budimir and another; Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2010] EWCA Crim 148; [2010] EWHC 1604 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 166 CA and DC: Lord Judge CJ, David Clarke, Lloyd Jones JJ: 29 June 2010 – read judgment A new High Court decision has struck a blow for legal certainty and enforced the sometimes forgotten right under human rights law against retrospective criminal sanctions, which applies even in cases where the UK had failed to enact European… [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:49 pm
In Hill v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:39 am
The article merely stated that “questions were raised” about her due diligence. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 4:03 am
What Megarry J had said in a case reported in 1969 was as follows: I accept that what Lord Selborne and Lord Cottenham [in a previous decision of the House of Lords] said must be ranked as dicta. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
Cusson v Quan 2007 ONCA 771). [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
There has been significant commentary and conjecture over the decision in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor (see our post or read the judgment). [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 1:50 pm
Sch 1 makes provision for the arrangements in relation to sensitive personal information to be amended by way of order of the Lord Chancellor. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 8:17 am
The “Explanatory Notes” to Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill have been made available. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 4:48 am
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2010] UKSC 29 JUDGMENT The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the jurisdiction issue (Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr dissenting) and unanimously dismissed the appeal on the inquest issue. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:41 am
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2010] UKSC 29 – Read judgment The Supreme Court has ruled by a 6-3 majority that the Human Rights Act does not apply on the battlefield and soldiers are not automatically entitled to inquests arising from deaths in foreign conflicts. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 10:07 pm
Secretary of State for Home Department (Respondent) v AP (Appellant) (no 2) [2009] EWCA Civ 731 Supreme Court 23 June 2010 AP, who had been subject to a control order and who now continued to live at the same address under bail pending a deportation decision on grounds of national security, was entitled to continuing anonymity because of the risks he faced if his identity were revealed - read judgment We posted recently on a ruling by the Supreme Court that the social isolation… [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:59 pm
However, Lords Phillips stated: “I do not think that the principal was purporting to impose a disciplinary sanction. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 1:15 pm
Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 at 254: Lord Guest in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:39 am
In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled last week in the case of Morrision et al. v. [read post]
