Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 421 - 440
of 3,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2017, 2:49 am
The Court stated that the issues had to be considered in light of the CJEU ruling which had held that, where a national court examines national legislation in the light of the justification relating to the protection of health under TFEU art 36, it is bound to examine objectively whether it may reasonably be concluded that the means chosen are appropriate and the least restrictive for the attainment of the objectives pursued from the evidence submitted by the Member State… [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 9:53 am
In Blaustein v. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 8:31 am
Just who they are varies from state to state, but they've included doctors who can't get hospital privileges anywhere, felons doing time for drug offenses, former EMTs, and . . . . [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:23 am
On 7 March 2012, the Supreme Court gave judgment in seven linked cases, now known as W (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 8. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 7:29 am
In its original application to Strasbourg MGN contested the decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN ([2004] 2 AC 457) that it breached Ms Campbell’s privacy by the publication of an articles in February 2001 in which it divulged details about her drug addiction therapy. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 2:27 am
He stated that the judgments in Johnson and Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc; Cornwall County Court v McCabe [2004] UKHL 35 both recognised that provisions in the ERA did not supersede an employee’s common law and contractual rights and he allowed the appeal. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 2:42 am
The Supreme Court stated in dismissing the claim that s 94(5) of the Act reads as referring to countries where its citizens are free from any serious risk of systematic persecution either by the state or by non-state agents. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 4:11 am
By way of introduction, Lord Brown noted that the majority in the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2008] 1 AC 385 held that deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:32 am
The father appealed against that decision.Held: Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Pill said (at paragraph 7) that the primary issue was the meaning and effect of paragraph 16(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Child Support Act 1991, which states that a maintenance assessment will cease to have effect "on there no longer being any qualifying child with respect to whom it would have effect". [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 5:30 am
Whoever or United States v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:00 am
The case was heard by Lady Hale, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
The complaints in Hines v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 1:30 am
It relied on the judgment of Lord Bingham in Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, which had stated that time generally runs from the point at which a person is charged or summoned. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 8:08 am
Justice Munby, in agreement with Lord Justice Thorpe’s comments, stated that the rule has a “baleful effect” and that “something should be done to amend rule 3.17 with a view to implementing Lord Justice Thorpe’s wise proposals”. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 3:26 am
Lord Hamblen (with whom Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales agreed) gave the majority opinion of the court, with Lord Briggs dissenting. [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 3:22 am
Applying those principles, Lord Hodge concluded that, in the 2014 Act, Parliament authorised the subordinate legislation by which the Secretary of State has fixed the relevant application fee. [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]
15 Sep 2015, 1:00 am
Lord Reed cites a nice example, Schmidberger Internationale v Austria (Case C-112/00) [2003] ECR I-5659. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 10:25 am
Well, not as it did in the case of Zeiderman v Zeiderman, which Lord Justice Wall said "does not show the family justice system in a particularly good light".On the 7th June 2006 District Judge Segal, sitting in the Principal Registry, ordered that Mr Zeiderman transfer the former matrimonial home to Mrs Zeiderman and that he pay her maintenance at the rate of £20,000 a year. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 8:24 am
The People's Republic of Bangladesh v. [read post]
