Search for: "Powell v. Doe"
Results 581 - 600
of 1,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jul 2013, 8:44 am
In United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private… [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private… [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:14 am
But in Grutter v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 3:00 am
The White Paper (correctly) invoked the Hamdi v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 3:37 pm
Unlike Powell, this required a factual determination.The Defendant was entitled to, at least, know the d the dates and substance of allegations against him. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 3:37 pm
Unlike Powell, this required a factual determination.The Defendant was entitled to, at least, know the d the dates and substance of allegations against him. [read post]
14 May 2013, 8:12 am
Powell cast what would seem to have been the deciding vote in 1986 in Bowers v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 6:40 pm
In Sony v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 7:44 am
The Court failed timely to appoint counsel in Powell v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 7:37 am
As we all know s.89, Housing Act 1980, cannot be read in any other way (see Powell at [62]), but is, in the context of possession hearings, compatible with Article 8 (Powell, at [64]).If s.89, can’t be read down, then the county court is going to be unable to consider an Article 8 defence at the warrant stage (six weeks will already have expired or if there is time left unlikely to be long enough). [read post]
1 May 2013, 7:37 am
As we all know s.89, Housing Act 1980, cannot be read in any other way (see Powell at [62]), but is, in the context of possession hearings, compatible with Article 8 (Powell, at [64]).If s.89, can’t be read down, then the county court is going to be unable to consider an Article 8 defence at the warrant stage (six weeks will already have expired or if there is time left unlikely to be long enough). [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 7:13 pm
Powell of the Virginia Supreme Court, the author of the decision in The Falls Church v. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 3:37 am
But this is a narrow exception to the general rule that a person will not be bound by the outcome of proceedings to which he is not a party: Skyparks v Marks, Powell v Wiltshire, Seven Arts v Content. iii) A direct commercial interest in the outcome of the litigation is insufficient to make someone a privy: Kirin-Amgen v Boehringer Mannheim. iv) Whether members of the same group of companies are privies or not depends on the facts: Special Effects. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:43 am
Doyle v. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 7:26 pm
Andrew Culbert (Microsoft) posed the question, “what does non-discriminatory mean? [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 8:39 am
The case of Cobb and Powell v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 10:48 am
” Judge Black also quoted from an earlier Supreme Court opinion, in Powell v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 10:23 am
This motion does not address the questionable merits of [Pearson's] claims. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
The case that established that principle, Powell v. [read post]
