Search for: "State v. Constable"
Results 361 - 380
of 517
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2012, 6:52 am
In Simao v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 8:24 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 11:29 pm
The need for imminence or immediacy of a threat to peace as a prerequisite for kettling had also been emphasised by the House of Lords in an earlier case in 2006 (R (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary (Chief Constable of Tames Valley Police and another, interested parties) [2006] UKHL 55, [2007] 2 All ER 529). [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 5:19 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 7:40 pm
Caren Myers Morrison (Georgia State University - College of Law) has posted The Drug Dealer, the Narc, and the Very Tiny Constable: Reflections on United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:11 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:18 am
Buried on Page 85 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s report, it states : “The Advocate Depute telephoned the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, who was in London. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm
Domestic law was also consistent with the notion that state authorities have a positive duty to take steps to ensure that lawful public demonstrations can take place, the court referring in particular to the dicta of Lord Bingham in R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2007] 2 AC 105 and the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hall and Others [2011] 1 WLR 504. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 10:30 pm
As Lord Chief Justice Camden evocatively stated in Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Trials 1030, “the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass”. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:16 am
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 6:19 am
(Is it possible to imagine a case in which a constable secreted himself somewhere in a coach and remained there for a period of time in order to monitor the movements of the coach’s owner?) [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:22 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 6:37 am
R (S) v. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
R (T) v (1) Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department (Secretary of State for Justice an interested party) [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin) – read judgment. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 2:15 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:30 am
In the Courts On Monday 6 February 2012, Tugendhat J gave a number of ex tempore rulings in the libel case of Bento v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm
The recent decision of the US Supreme Court in United States v Jones has brought one particular form of surveillance of suspected individuals to the fore in public debate, namely the use of global positioning surveillance (GPS). [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 4:05 am
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, W & BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Z, G, U & Y v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 30 – 31 January 2012. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:30 am
Mr Gervase Duffield v The Independent, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Ms Hayley Quinn v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mr Alex Scott v The Times, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mr Alex Scott and Mr James Elliott v The Sun, Clause 1, 01/02/2012; Mrs Jane Clarke v Northwich Guardian, Clause 5, 01/02/2012; Mr Peter Vince-Lindsay v Daily Mail, Clause 1 01/02/2012. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 7:34 am
In a Term in which the Court was not considering the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Texas’s redistricting plans, and Arizona’s controversial efforts to regulate immigration, the Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
