Search for: "Hale v. United States"
Results 41 - 60
of 395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2013, 2:55 am
A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 9:15 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 4:34 am
Lord Sumption, referring to Lord Hoffmann’s speech in Matadeen v Pointu [1999] 1 AC 98 and that of Baroness Hale in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557, stated that the principle of equality was “not a principle special to the jurisprudence of the European Union. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:47 am
Wider Implications The proceedings in Hook v British Airways and Stott v Thomas Cook have already attracted significant attention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission; with the Secretary of State acting as a further intervener. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:18 pm
The United States Supreme Court has this paradigm case pending before it (Morrison v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 8:17 am
’ Rather, it is ‘foreseeability . . . that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 11:51 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 12:14 pm
In adopting the Shield Law, New Jersey’s Legislature accepted an invitation by the United States Supreme Court in Branzburg v. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 4:05 am
Under the FSIA, those proceeds must have been used in a commercial activity in the United States in order for U.S. courts to have jurisdiction. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 7:57 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:06 am
Goodyear v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 3:13 pm
Proc., § 410.10) authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 5:06 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:35 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 1:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
On 18 June 2014 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 4:55 am
Also see R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16, at paras 105-106 [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 7:15 am
Gender Inequality in 21st Century Britain: Using litigation as a tool Direct Sex Discrimination and Disadvantage to women: R (Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 40 Introduction: Does Law Have a Gender? [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:04 am
R. and H. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 1:34 am
This principle was famously laid down in the case of Sidhu v British Airways (where passengers could not sue at common law for harm resulting from their plane having been high jacked following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait), and subsequently applied by senior courts around the world, including notably the United States Supreme Court in El Al Israel Airlines v Tseng (though Justice Stevens there dissented). [read post]
