Search for: "State v. Bishop" Results 621 - 640 of 958
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2012, 1:39 am by Michael Geist
First, a unanimous court in the song previews reset the law with an emphasis once again on balance and user rights: In Theberge v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 1:24 am by Anthony Fairclough
Update In the recent case of JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938, the Court of Appeal held that a bishop could be held vicariously liable for abuse carried out by a parish priest. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:24 am by Rosalind English
 There is nothing modern or nanny-state about the doctrine that make masters liable to society for the wrongdoing of their servants. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 12:49 am by Sam Murrant
JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938 Court of Appeal held (by 2-1 majority) that the High Court was right to find that a Bishop can be vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by a priest within that Bishop’s diocese (despite a lack of an actual employer-employee relationship, as is usually necessary for vicarious liability) Hussain, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department… [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 11:07 pm
[Note: This post is Part V of a series on amending the BCP and adopting trial or experimental liturgies for use in the Church, as we head into General Convention LXXVII later this week. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 9:32 pm
" had never happened.The offending passage -- which so "shocked" the betrayed Deputy  -- appears (as stated) in First Corinthians (ch. 6, v. 9). [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 6:39 pm
Many other Bishops may not be aware of it just now, but they are going to face plenty of storms in their own dioceses after they return.This is not like General Convention 2003, when people had to read the news about the confirmation of V. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 1:26 pm by WIMS
Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Georgia-Pacific (GP) West, Inc. v. [read post]