Search for: "Likely v. State"
Results 5021 - 5040
of 82,323
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2022, 11:36 am
In 2020, in Bolger v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 2:21 am
In a case brought by Rights of Women determined in February this year, the Court of Appeal concluded that Regulations made under LASPO requiring victims of domestic violence to satisfy onerous evidential requirements directed at establishing the necessary victimhood as a condition of a grant of legal aid, were contrary to the purpose of LASPO and unlawful (R (Rights of Women) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 91). [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 11:50 am
Arar v Ashcroft is an example of this last category (although the court found that a Bivens action was not available because of state secrets considerations rather than directly under the state secrets doctrine). [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 8:45 am
Little help expected from SCOTUSCoincidentally, the US Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments on eyewitness procedures, though SCOTUSBlog reports that "the Court very likely will decide this case, Perry v. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 8:22 am
Case citation: Daniels v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 3:16 am
Lord Wilson noted that there is evidence of extensive torture by state forces in Sri Lanka at the relevant time. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 10:21 am
In Pepper v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 7:22 am
FEC and NFIB v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 7:22 am
FEC and NFIB v. [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 10:20 am
” Implied-in-Law Contract/Unjust Enrichment The court says that these state law claims are preempted by copyright law. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:57 am
The two Supreme Court cases that comprise the bedrock of legal precedent for the third-party doctrine—Smith v Maryland and United States v Miller—do not apply to cell site location data, the court found: We agree with the defendant…that the nature of cellular telephone technology and CSLI and the character of cellular telephone use in our current society render the third-party doctrine of Miller and Smith inapposite; the digital age has altered… [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:50 am
Co. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 11:23 am
(See Edwards v. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 11:27 am
For people like Mr. [read post]
24 Apr 2021, 7:25 am
Risk of future harm: The allegations regarding risk of future harm are similarly too vague for the court’s liking. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 12:00 am
Tension had been growing over indications that MacLeod was likely to dispute significant extra costs, and perhaps in an attempt to bring the inevitable forward in time, the invoice in question contained those extra costs, despite the contract stating that extras would only become payable on the last invoice. [read post]
10 May 2011, 9:39 am
Co. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 8:35 am
As Lord Clarke said at [111] he would have very much liked to be able to agree with Lord Kerr, but he did not think there was a proper basis for so doing. [read post]
5 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
On August 20, 2024, in Ryan LLC v. [read post]
5 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
On August 20, 2024, in Ryan LLC v. [read post]
