Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3721 - 3740
of 4,048
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 May 2011, 5:54 am
If so apply “the ultimate balancing test” which has four elements identified by Lord Steyn (in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 A.C. 593 at para 17): “First, neither article [8 or 10] has as such precedence over the other. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:45 am
Lord Acton (1834-1902), the English historian, famously said that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 6:41 am
Theresa May’s #Catflapgate earned the derision of Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke who described her example of the Human Rights Act in operation – and she was not making it up – as ‘laughable and childlike’. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
15 Jul 2007, 11:08 pm
Gideon v. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 4:48 am
Noting the very high threshold for review imposed by the Wednesbury test (see criticisms of this by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26,[2001] 2 AC 532 and the Strasbourg Court in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493, para. 138) the Committee considered that the application of a “proportionality principle” by the courts in E&W could provide an adequate… [read post]
1 Jan 2022, 7:34 pm
In most states, the priestly role has been transformed. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:33 am
In Thornton v. [read post]
12 Nov 2022, 10:45 am
Those Progressives saw the administrative state as the sword of social justice, particularly in the New Deal era. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
App. 2008) (“[t]here can be no proximate cause where, as in this case, the prescribing physician did not read or rely upon the allegedly inadequate warnings promulgated by a defendant about a product”); Lord v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 4:30 am
Evidence Act) were legislated into hurried existence in the late 1960’s, in response to the decision in, Myers v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 9:42 am
No. 194798/21722 (Panama); RUC # 2172202194798 (Panama) [SDNT] ESCALONA, Victor Julio, c/o C A V J CORPORATION LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.A. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 4:15 pm
It is well established that the exemption applies both before and after publication (see Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633). [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 11:21 am
See United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 9:01 pm
For a more complete transcript, see the appendix to Paramount Communications Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 5:55 pm
Sweet & Maxwell, Lord on Chapter 7, p. 272) [ix] Justice R.V. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 4:28 pm
The House of Lords found that such practices did interfere with individuals’ right to a private life under Article 8(1) [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 9:00 pm
Consistently with its reasoning in Gasser (Case C-116/02) and Turner v Grovit (Case C-259/02), the Court held in West Tankers that “even though proceedings [to enforce an arbitration agreement via an anti-suit injunction] do not come within the scope of [the Brussels I Regulation], they may nevertheless have consequences which undermine its effectiveness”, if they “prevent a court of another Member State from exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by [the… [read post]
