Search for: "Adams v. ACS"
Results 21 - 40
of 142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Nov 2020, 4:00 am
A number of cases involving corporate libel claimants were decided before the Supreme Court’s decision in Lachaux v Independent Print [2020] AC 612 finally settled the meaning of the “serious harm” test. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 2:26 pm
Finally, in the National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. has this column on the DC Circuit's gun control decision, which broke with Supreme Court precedent, and UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler weighs in here at the ACS Blog. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 8:08 am
Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday. 1: Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Between Google and Oracle First off today, Adam Liptak at The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the Google v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 11:15 pm
Livengood v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 4:09 pm
He further added: vii) If the line between legitimate freedom of expression and a threat to public order has indeed been crossed, freedom of speech will not have been impaired by “ruling …out” threatening, abusive or insulting speech: per Lord Reid, in Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854, at p. 862. viii) The legislature has entrusted the decision in a case such as the present to Magistrates or a District Judge. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 2:06 pm
At the ACS Blog, Professor Ana M. [read post]
13 Feb 2019, 3:37 am
” NFIB weighs in on Kisor v. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 3:56 am
” At ACS Blog, Lawrence Fox maintains that Lacaze v. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 4:09 pm
Where the truth defence failed in relation to the eighth to thirteenth meanings, the public interest defence succeeded “tout court” and the judgment cited Warby J in Economou v de Frietas [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB), Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2007] 1 AC 359 and Flood v Times Newspapers [2012] 2 AC 273 on the requirement only that the article as a whole is evaluated, rather than a public interest justification for each item of the article. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 1:42 am
In addressing the very nature of human rights law, Lord Reed called with approval upon the words of Lord Cooke in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532: “The truth is, I think, that some rights are inherent and fundamental to democratic civilised society. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 4:22 pm
But the High Court has already ruled in a similar case (where protesters chanted “burn in hell”, “baby killers” and “rapists” at British soldiers) that prosecution under the public order act was legitimate, and that freedom of speech will not have been impaired by ““ruling …out” threatening, abusive or insulting speech” (Lord Reid, in Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854, at p. 862). [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 1:55 am
R v Adams (Northern Ireland), heard 19 November 2019. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 2:00 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton) v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL, heard 7 Mar 2017 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd & Ors v Bosworth & Anor, heard 10-11 Apr 2017 Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor v Lungowe & Ors, heard 15-16 Jan 2019 Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd, heard 8 May 2019 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue,… [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 7:38 am
At ACS blog, Adam Winkler predicts that in the four “potentially landmark” rulings yet to come this Term — including the same-sex marriage cases, Fisher, and Shelby County — “[t]he conservative justices will be bold and assertive, while the liberal justices will be hesitant and incremental. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 2:30 am
R v Adams (Northern Ireland), heard 19 November 2019. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 2:30 am
R v Adams (Northern Ireland), heard 19 November 2019. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 7:07 am
He cites the Brown v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 3:38 pm
El Perro Polar Argentino, extinguido víctima de un tratado de protección ambiental. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 2:13 pm
This was established in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3 and confirmed in Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl G.m.b.h. [1983] 2 AC 34 (both cases involving telexes). [read post]
9 May 2007, 6:38 pm
The ACS Blog has this piece on Kidwell v. [read post]
