Search for: "Hope v. Hope"
Results 4741 - 4760
of 23,997
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Sep 2021, 4:30 am
Bush v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 6:23 am
Gore than Williams v. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 2:19 pm
The decision of the House of Lords in Limbuela (R (on the application of Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 66, (2006) 1 AC 396) is quite clear on this point; as Lord Hope pointed out “The question whether, and if so in what circumstances, support should be given at the expense of the state to asylum seekers is, of course, an intensely political issue” And, he went on to say, engagement in this “political” issue is no part of… [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 1:27 pm
In 1999 the supreme court of Canada outlined the circumstances when an employer would (and would not) be held vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an employee: Bazley v Curry and Jacobi v. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 1:57 pm
In Carrera v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 9:12 am
I know the East Coast Republican's are bitterly disappointed over Wyeth v Levine as 8 years of Bush court policy was counted on to win the preemption case, but the judges in a 6-3 decision ended that hope. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 10:41 am
In New York Times v. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 9:12 am
As you recall, earlier this year Florida passed SB 7072, a brazenly censorial #MAGA bill. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 5:00 am
With that majority in place, conservatives hope, and liberals fear, that the court will renounce nearly five decades of abortion jurisprudence and overturn the landmark rulings of Roe v. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 5:58 am
Not Likely (Nina Totenberg, NPR) Trump’s ‘Litigation Barrage’ Unlikely to Change Result (Kenneth Jost, Jost on Justice) Donald Trump still hopes lawsuits will make up for his lack of votes (Steven Mazie, The Economist) Fulton v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 4:47 pm
Since failure to abide by the requirements of Hines is all too common a problem it is perhaps hopeful that in a concurring decision Judge Smith wrote thatToday's decision correctly applies People v Hines (97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 11:28 am
[Post by Venkat] Duffy v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm
A nice summary of the meaning of these requirements in the context of criminal law provisions was provided by Lord Hope in R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345, at paragraph 41: Accessibility means that an individual must know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable: see also Gülmez v Turkey… [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:44 am
That case is Douglas v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 2:25 pm
The case, Ruusunen v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 7:43 am
” Article V of the U.S. [read post]
30 Mar 2007, 8:55 am
TGIP, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 11:10 am
Protective Co. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 8:06 am
Then in the 2002 case of Ring v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 9:24 pm
Could the Government document a subject's movements for a year without a warrant in the hopes of obtaining incriminatory evidence? [read post]
