Search for: "People v Lord"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,805
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2017, 12:47 pm
” Packingham v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:09 am
Lord Reed adds a further category of persons to whom a “less stringent approach” to precariousness might be appropriate: people who “might be under a reasonable misapprehension as to their ability to maintain a family life in the UK”. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 8:06 am
R (o.t.a A and B) v. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 1:55 am
Lord Wilson, with whom Lady Hale, Lord Hodge and Lord Toulson agreed, held that in order for article 8 to be effective the appellants needed the opportunity to bring their appeals against deportation from within the UK. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 7:34 am
See also Johnson v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 8:11 am
In Barker v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 7:46 am
In Impression Products Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 7:46 am
In Impression Products Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 10:01 pm
The new space will allow each side to have 16 attorneys in the court room at a time, and it can accommodate a total of 132 people. [read post]
19 May 2017, 9:33 am
“You are doing the Lord’s work,” ABA News quotes Kagan as saying. [read post]
15 May 2017, 10:17 am
Studies show that women get interrupted more (no matter how senior), passed over for promotions and raises (even though entitled) and reviewed negatively for similar traits celebrated and promoted in men (bossy v leadership, arrogant v confident, etc). [read post]
10 May 2017, 8:01 am
Brief for Appellant, Reed v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm
But, by the end of the 1800s, this rationale lost currency, and by 1917 (in Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406), the House of Lords held that blasphemy protected the religious sensitivities of the individual; but the courts still confined the scope of the offence to the established Church (this was confirmed as recently as 1991 in R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429). [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 4:29 pm
In the case of Alexis v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 2:04 pm
She also failed in a judicial review of RKBC’s newly restrictive planning policy on basement developments, and of course won in the House of Lords on proprietary estoppel, but lost on unjust enrichment in Yeomans Row v Cobbe (2008) UKHL 55. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 2:15 pm
The House of Lords in O’Rourke v Camden LBC (1998) AC 188, and the court of appeal in X v Hounslow found no duty of care in Part VII and Part VI Housing Act 1996 obligations, or their previous equivalents. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 12:53 pm
(People v. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 4:33 pm
Appreciate you are busy but it would be v helpful to have answers to qs about party status and existence/format of jmt. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 8:11 am
You people make it hard. [read post]
2 Apr 2017, 4:26 am
There are several other reasons why the decision of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers was aberrant. [read post]
