Search for: "v. "
Results 4281 - 4300
of 493,762
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2007, 2:34 am
R v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 2:33 am
R v. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 12:32 pm
On October 9, 2007, the Court will hear oral arguments in Watson v. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 8:01 am
R v Montgomery “Where a prisoner who was on temporary release from prison pursuant to r 9 of the Prison Rules 1999 failed to return to prison at the expiry of his release period, he could not be said to have escaped from custody and could not therefore be guilty of the common law offence of escape from custody. [read post]
23 May 2008, 2:53 am
R v Porter; [2008] WLR (D) 167 “There was no obligation upon an employer in the conduct of his undertaking to guard against those risks which were merely fanciful. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 8:47 am
R v Sivaraman; [2008] WLR (D) 256 “There was no rule of law to the effect that, for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the amount of the benefit to each of the co-conspirators to a fraud must be taken as the whole amount of the loss attributable to the fraud: the amount of the benefit might vary as between the co-conspirators, and was to be determined on a common sense appreciation of the particular facts of the case. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 5:33 am
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in Samantar v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 8:25 am
R v M; [2008] WLR (D) 297 “Where a defendant in criminal proceedings was said to have breached a restraint order, imposed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by making certain prohibited transactions a judge of the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try an application made by the prosecution for the defendant to be committed for contempt. [read post]
19 May 2008, 2:25 am
R v May [2008] UKHL 28; [2008] WLR (D) 151 “Where co-defendants had jointly received property as a result of criminal activity, each was liable to receive a confiscation order representing the entire value, as if he had acted alone, provided he had sufficient assets to meet the order. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 7:07 am
McCartney, Beneficiary, Petitioner and Appellant, v. [read post]
29 May 2007, 2:37 am
R v. [read post]
18 Feb 2008, 2:08 am
R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185; [2008] WLR (D) 47 “The offence of possessing a document containing information ‘of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’ was only committed if the document concerned was of a kind that was likely to provide practical assistance to such a person, rather than simply encouraging the commission of terrorist acts. [read post]
29 May 2007, 2:28 am
Charman v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 2:47 pm
Justice Kennedy’s majority in Kennedy v. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 2:19 am
R v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 9:37 pm
From the Wall Street Journal on Apple v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 2:31 am
R v. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 10:30 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 12:41 pm
In SONY BMG Music v. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 4:33 pm
Alvarez v. [read post]
