Search for: "United States v. Lord"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,510
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2015, 8:29 am
” [9] The Court also noted that the English courts (in subsequent cases such as Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust and Chester v Afshar) had quietly ceased to follow Sidaway‘s adoption of the Bolam test. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 10:01 pm
Lord Denning and Tesco: Lord Denning had stated in H.L. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 12:01 am
But if in fact the instructions issued in Georgia v. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
United States Wired suggests that the state of Utah has become a leader in digital privacy with the passing of a new privacy law. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am
In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27138/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I; and Connors, cited above, §§ 83 and 92) 68. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 2:40 am
The courts should take into account agreements such as the MoU and should assume that they would be adhered to, following RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2009) UKHL. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 9:41 pm
They include two members of the still relatively new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom—the Right Honorable The Lord Mance and the Right Honourable Lord Reed. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 4:49 am
In October 2011 the Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited ruling in Axa General Insurance v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 5:27 pm
, pp. 29-34(6) Ivan Hare Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdo [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 12:29 pm
Essentially, Carnwath LJ endorsed the application of the test set by the European Court in A v United Kingdom and elucidated in AF (No. 3). [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
Mitty J surveyed the various tests for proportionality, articulated in the common law (by Lord Clyde in de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1991] 1 AC 69; in Strasbourg (Sporrong & Lönnroth v Sweden [1982] 5 EHRR 35) and James v United Kingdom [1986] 8EHRR 123. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm
Ultimately, as Lord Hoffmann states in R-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights (provided it squarely confronts what it is doing). [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 9:55 pm
The House of Lords has also made clear that it is necessary to consider the impact of deportation on all of the members of the family unit, not just the individual being deported (Beoku-Betts v SSHD [2008] UKHL 39), and that in cases involving children, only rarely should an Article 8 claim be unsuccessful on the basis that it would be more proportionate and more appropriate for that individual to leave and apply for leave from abroad (Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL… [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 2:35 am
The appellants, SC and CB (“the adult appellants”), SC’s three youngest children and CB’s five children (“the child appellants”), brought proceedings against the respondents, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Lords Commissioners of HM Treasury, and the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:28 pm
And in his detailed consideration of the response of various contracting states to the Salduz decision, Lord Hope notes that a number of states have taken steps to alter their law to bring it into line with the Strasbourg approach. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 1:31 am
Core Issues Trust, R (On the Application of) v Transport for London & Another [2014] EWCA Civ 34 is a fascinating ruling of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales (Lord Dyson MR, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke) since it isn't an intellectual property case at all, but has the potential to raise so many IP issues. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 5:03 pm
re v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 2:15 am
But in this connection, let us turn to the case of Hirst v United Kingdom No2 (the prisoner voting case). [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 2:49 pm
And it looks like there will be election litigation that will make Bush v. [read post]
25 May 2023, 11:00 pm
In simple terms, the government cannot take your land and then decide later what to do with it without running afoul of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.Absent “urban blight,” or other exceptions which weren’t present here, the AD4 annulled the Town’s efforts to acquire the Mall property and awarded the owner its fees and costs.Not that’s a… [read post]
