Search for: "Rodgers v. Rodgers"
Results 421 - 440
of 480
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2010, 9:29 am
HELD: Appeal dismissed (Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker, and Brown dissenting). [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 5:12 am
J noted that R v Purdy suggested that the UKSC would offer some assistance where a recent judgment was inconsistent with subsequent ECHR judgments (see also Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] 3 WLR 74, cited by Lord Brown in Horncastle at [118], referring to the wonderful sentence of Lord Rodger: ""Argentoratum locutum, iudicium finitum - Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 5:12 am
J noted that R v Purdy suggested that the UKSC would offer some assistance where a recent judgment was inconsistent with subsequent ECHR judgments (see also Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] 3 WLR 74, cited by Lord Brown in Horncastle at [118], referring to the wonderful sentence of Lord Rodger: ""Argentoratum locutum, iudicium finitum - Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 5:59 pm
Rodgers, 2009 U.S. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 6:59 am
Rodgers, New Jersey App. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 7:00 pm
C'est la vie.PD-1263-08, Rodger Eugene Mansfield, Jr. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2009, 11:45 am
In the recent case of Freed v. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 4:45 pm
" See In re Rodger’s Estate v. [read post]
1 Aug 2009, 12:28 am
Co. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 8:09 am
w Rodgers v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 6:34 am
Lawrence v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 6:05 am
The case Midwest Biohazard Services, LLC v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 1:30 am
Daniel Sokol Barry Rodger (University of Strathclyde Law School) has been doing some very interesting empirical work on private rights of action in the UK. [read post]
22 May 2009, 9:21 am
Rodgers v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 1:55 pm
Nuestro héroe [vía Lifehacker] se paseó por medio Brasil y pudo hacer más de 5.000 fotos como éstas. [read post]
16 May 2009, 4:00 am
Rodgers, 2009 U.S. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 10:42 am
Rodgers, 2006 U.S. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 6:09 pm
The view of Lord Walker (with which Lords Rodger and Neuberger agreed) was that assurance on which a proprietary estoppel is based only needs to be “clear enough”. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 6:06 pm
Lord Hope, Lord Rodger and Lord Walker argued that the difficulty of separating agreed fact from offer of settlement was such that the prospect would inhibit open negotiations between parties. [read post]
MO: Defendant gave consent for officers to enter to look for marijuana pipe; consent was not limited
17 Mar 2009, 3:12 am
Rodgers, 2009 Ohio 961, 2009 Ohio App. [read post]
