Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,881
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
8 May 2017, 7:43 am
Barron v. [read post]
3 May 2017, 5:00 am
Ace Am. [read post]
1 May 2017, 3:41 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 4:20 am
Briefly: At the ACS blog, Brian Stull weighs in on Davila v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 4:10 pm
Popplewell J, referring to Lord Keith’s dictum in Attorney-General v Observer Ltd [1990] 1 AC 109 (the “Spycatcher” case), decided it was not necessary for the disclosure to cause detriment to BHAM. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:13 pm
Apparently Google is now aces in the FTC’s book: In effect, users are continuously “voting” (with their clicks) on what is useful to them and what is not, and Google is continuously reacting to those votes, revising its SERP accordingly. [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]
9 Apr 2017, 3:16 pm
As per H and Others v Ealing, the Defendant had to meet the four stage test in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) (2014) AC 700 (1) is there a sufficiently important objective (i.e. legitimate aim), (2) is the measure rationally connected to that objective, (3) is it the least intrusive measure which could be used without unacceptably compromising the objective and (4) in adopting the measure has the defendant struck a fair balance between the importance of securing the… [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 10:42 am
In this case, only AC did so. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 10:42 am
In this case, only AC did so. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 4:15 pm
It is well established that the exemption applies both before and after publication (see Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633). [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 4:18 am
The first is Advocate Health Care Network v. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 9:38 pm
From this, one could conclude that either Nokia believed it could quickly deliver these results to the market, or that it had an ace up its sleeve that could deliver value to shareholders another way. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 5:31 pm
Ltd [2006] QB 125 and OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1) that each publication of photographs or videos is a fresh intrusion of privacy. [read post]
Hong Kong: Freedom of the (Entertainment) Press: Part 1, Data Privacy and Public Interest – David Ma
22 Mar 2017, 5:29 pm
The House of Lords case Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457– where Naomi Campbell claimed the publication of her treatment at Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) infringed her right to be respected for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 4:29 am
” In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps discusses Buck v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 4:33 am
” In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Mark Grabowski argues that the justices’ comments during oral argument in Packingham v. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 6:01 pm
While covering these events, my blog has been inundated with comments expressing outrage at FDA and state regulators for raw milk cheese “crackdowns. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 10:20 am
It has been just over ten years since the major decision of R (Laporte) v CC Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55; [2007] 2 AC 105, which considered what could amount to a breach of the peace. [read post]
