Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3661 - 3680
of 4,048
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2009, 1:33 pm
The Court: The State of Texas v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 3:46 am
R (Barclay and others) v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and others [2009] UKSC 9; [2009] WLR (D) 349 "The presence of two unelected non-voting members in the legislature of the Channel Island of Sark, which had 28 democratically elected voting members, did not contravene art 3 of the First Protocol to [...] [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 2:59 am
Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Others Supreme Court "The presence of two unelected, non-voting members in the legislature of the Channel Island of Sark which had 28 voting members democratically elected by an electorate of under 500 was not incompatible with article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, [...] [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 1:23 pm
The Court of Appeal had found that it was possible to make such a possession order as an extension of Drury v the Secretary of State[2004] 1 WLR 1906. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 9:12 pm
United States and United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
/**/ R (A) v Croydon & R (M) v Lambeth UKSC [2009] 8 This was an appeal heard by the House of Lords over the course of four days in July, but with judgment delivered by the new Supreme Court. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
/**/ R (A) v Croydon & R (M) v Lambeth UKSC [2009] 8 This was an appeal heard by the House of Lords over the course of four days in July, but with judgment delivered by the new Supreme Court. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 7:33 am
Grinstein v. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 3:06 pm
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal addressed the issue of pre-emptive strikes in United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 7:29 am
In United Scientific Holdings v Burnley [1978] AC 904 (which contains an excellent summary of the principle and its evolution in both law and equity by Lord Diplock) the House of Lords held that in a rent review clause time is presumed not to be of the essence. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 2:19 pm
What amounts to “positive action” will no doubt depend upon the circumstances of a particular case and, in some circumstances, the state may be required to take positive steps to prevent ill-treatment at the hands of others (see, e.g., R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38 at [24] per Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2008] UKHL 66 at [44] per… [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 9:33 am
If, however, there is some doubt about whether the actual form of compound claimed would result from the described process, it needs to be determined whether following the process would inevitably arrive at the claimed compound.This was the situation in Leo Pharma v Sandoz EWCA Civ 1188, which was decided by Lords Justice Jacob and Patten yesterday (17 November), on appeal from Floyd J's decision in the High Court earlier this year ([2009] EWHC 996 (Pat)). [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 7:00 am
In the case of U.S. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 6:05 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 3:39 pm
Lord Citation: 2009 WY 135 Docket Number: S-08-0225 Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 1:19 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 9:54 pm
This problem, at least in part, appears to have been recognised by the House of Lords in Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1 where Lord Scott of Foscote said:“I think it needs to be understood that the difference between costs at the standard rate and costs on an indemnity basis is, according to the language of the relevant rules, not very great. [read post]
