Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3481 - 3500
of 4,048
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2010, 1:08 pm
Malpas v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 4:34 am
In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was `the best that the nature of the case will allow’. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 4:11 am
By way of introduction, Lord Brown noted that the majority in the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2008] 1 AC 385 held that deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 11:06 pm
As Lord Bingham put it in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC, HL [31] The purposes of such an investigation are clear: to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at… [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
But does the finality of an adoption order in technical legal terms override the protection extended by the Convention to what may be called, for want of a better phrase, the undeniable biological state of things? [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 7:04 am
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Jones v Kaney [2010] EWHC 61 (QB) (21 January 2010) High Court (Administrative Court) Mhango, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1321 (Admin) (10 June 2010) Am, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2010] EWHC 1228 (Admin) (28 May 2010) The Law Society of England and Wales, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor… [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
In the alternative – if that analysis was wrong – the judge found that the decision to make and affirm the Order must be part of a process of determination of the bank’s civil rights of the kind analysed by Lord Clyde in R (Alconbury) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2003] 2 AC 295 in paragraphs 145 to 160. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:15 am
The Court of Human Rights held that the award of £1.5 million to Lord Aldington in respect of a pamphlet alleging that he was a war criminal was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression (see Tolstoy v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442). [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 11:00 pm
Morley & Ors, R. v [2010] EW Misc 9 (EWCC) (11 June 2010) – Read judgment Four former Members of Parliament have failed in their initial bid to claim parliamentary privilege in criminal proceedings arising from the parliamentary expenses scandal. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 9:40 pm
Lord Justice Laws in the Court of Appeal rejected his arguments outright. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 11:51 am
” Better Courts Now complains that Roe v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:24 am
United States. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 5:19 pm
As Lord Lester appears to recognise, this is not a reform proposal which should be taken forward. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:45 am
Lord Justice Laws in the High Court has now rubbished that suggestion, saying: Lord Carey’s observations are misplaced. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:45 am
Lucia) Limited et al v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:45 am
Lucia) Limited et al v. [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 2:39 am
Nevertheless, the “single meaning” rule has been well established in the law for two hundred years and was endorsed by the House of Lords in Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 5:42 pm
Co. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:51 am
Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Samantar v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 9:30 pm
Lord Hoffman, a former House of Lords judge, warned last year that the Strasbourg court had been “unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States. [read post]
