Search for: "Ace v. State"
Results 421 - 440
of 1,872
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2019, 4:58 pm
Lord Carnwath traced the case law on “ouster” clauses back to Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, the widest reading of which was summarised by Lord Diplock in O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 279 as follows (emphasis added): “…if a tribunal whose jurisdiction was limited by statute or subordinate legislation mistook the law applicable to the facts as it had found them, it must have… [read post]
14 May 2019, 10:48 am
In Peiroo v. [read post]
11 May 2019, 3:24 pm
(Not a typo).United States v. [read post]
10 May 2019, 4:48 pm
These cases range from ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4 (an immigration case) and ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 439 through to PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26. [read post]
6 May 2019, 1:32 pm
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Wignall referred to Southwark LBC v Mills (2001) 1 AC 1 for the proposition that in the ordinary case, in the absence of some other relevant feature, the ordinary use of a residential flat cannot give rise to an actionable nuisance even if the noise generated by that nuisance constitutes a considerable interference with the use of another flat above or below or adjoining the first flat. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 7:28 am
” This appears to be the first endorsement by an appellate court of the approach taken by Mr Justice Mitting on this issue in the case of TLT v (1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) The Home Office [2016] EWHC 2217. [read post]
20 Apr 2019, 10:37 am
To improve surveillance, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists has recommended that all L. monocytogenesisolates be forwarded to state public health laboratories for subtyping through the National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance (PulseNet). [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 6:49 am
She declined, essentially admitting that no additional facts could be alleged that might state her claims under the ATA or state law. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 5:59 am
Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Sevs. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 7:29 am
He observed that the test for duty of care in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605[3] was not necessarily the starting point in establishing whether a duty of care is owed by a parent company as this was not a “novel category of common law negligence liability”, but rather had already been considered in previous cases. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:41 pm
This was a key issue in United States v. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:41 pm
This was a key issue in United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 6:00 am
It is not enough for the Federalist Society (nor would it be for the ACS) to assure that compatible judges are nominated. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 7:38 am
Department of Commerce v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 8:54 am
It will be interesting to see how much of the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 1:06 pm
Mithun Mansinghani serves as solicitor general for the state of Oklahoma, which filed an amicus brief joined by 16 other states in support of the petitioners in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 12:45 pm
Door Shop appealed to the State Supreme Court. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 5:46 pm
See United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 2:22 pm
” Ace Elec. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:09 am
The respondent had argued that the Supreme Court decision in In Re McCaughey’s Application for Judicial Review [2011] UKSC 20, [2012] 1 AC 725 needed to be considered in the light of the Grand Chamber’s observations in Janowiec v Russia (55508/07) (2014) 58 EHRR 30. [read post]
