Search for: "Kerr v. Jones"
Results 41 - 60
of 370
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Nov 2019, 4:08 pm
On 21 November 2019, Steyn J heard an application in the case of UUU v BBB. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 2:07 pm
Jones & Co., LP v. [read post]
17 Nov 2019, 4:08 pm
On 12 November 2019 IP Kat covered the case of Herbay v Hungary, Appl. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 4:38 pm
On 6 and 7 November 2019 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale and Lords Reed, Kerr, Hodge and Lloyd-Jones) heard the appeal in the case of W M Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 4:23 pm
On 6 and 7 November 2019 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale and Lords Reed, Kerr, Hodge and Lloyd-Jones) will hear the appeal in the data protection case of W M Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
Lord Kerr queries why the prorogation needed to cover the conference recess. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:28 am
Given the constitutional importance of the questions posed in this matter, eleven Justices will hear the appeals, being Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court; Lord Reed, Deputy President of the Supreme Court; Lord Kerr; Lord Wilson; Lord Carnwath; Lord Hodge; Lady Black; Lord Lloyd-Jones; Lady Arden; Lord Kitchin; and Lord Sales. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 8:40 pm
In United States v. [read post]
23 Aug 2019, 12:16 am
Kerr, Searches and Seizures in A Digital World, 119 Harv. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 4:42 pm
In the light of this, it considered that Parliament’s choice to use the wording of “serious harm” could only have represented an intentional departure from the previous decisions in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 74 and Thornton v Telegraph Media Group [2010] EWHC (QB) 1414. [read post]
23 May 2019, 4:26 am
The justices were also divided as to how to answer this question, with Lord Kerr and Lady Hale agreeing with Lord Carnwath; Lords Lloyd-Jones, Reed and Sumption declining to give a view; and Lord Wilson dissenting. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:58 pm
The justices were also divided as to how to answer this question, with Lord Kerr and Lady Hale agreeing with Lord Carnwath; Lords Lloyd-Jones, Reed and Sumption declining to give a view; and Lord Wilson dissenting. [read post]
21 May 2019, 12:34 pm
Jones sets up the question, but neither Jones nor the relevant history provides much in the way of answers.17 The Court subsequently applied Jones in Florida v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 2:43 pm
Kerr, 300 F. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:48 am
Jones and Carpenter v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 5:26 am
Last month, in Commonwealth v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 2:49 am
" Jones, 565 U.S. at 405 (quoting Entick v. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 4:21 pm
Kerr. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 4:21 pm
Kerr. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 3:05 am
Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (Kozinski, J.). [read post]
