Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 661 - 680
of 3,605
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
It was Ratified by the President of the United States on April 17, 1889. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
By a majority (Lords Phillips, Brown and Rodger dissenting), the court held that the fact that the appellants would have lawfully been detained in any event did not affect the Secretary of State’s liability in false imprisonment. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 3:27 am
” In the minority on this issue, Lord Sumption (with whom Lord Neuberger and Lord Reed agreed) gave a dissenting judgment in which he stated that Zurich should only be liable to IEG in the first instance for 22.08% of the full loss. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:22 pm
It is this claim about which Henry V is seeking advice at the beginning of play: “My learned lord, we pray you to proceed,/ [...] [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 4:41 pm
This was recently recognized in unambiguous terms by Lord Hoffman in his speech for the unanimous House of Lords in Stein v. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 6:16 am
SSUK relied heavily on Sabaf SpA v Meneghetti SpA [2003] RPC 14 at [59], which states that the joint tortfeasor must have “made the tortious act his own”. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
Michel V. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 6:17 am
U.S., Black v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 1:44 am
The test for determining such an issue was recently authoritatively stated by the Supreme Court in the case of McInnes v HM Advocate 2010 SLT 266. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:28 am
AN v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 869 (28 July 2010) – Read judgment The Court of Appeal has held that control orders of three men suspected of terrorism revoked by the Government should in fact be quashed altogether. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 1:30 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12–14 January 2016. [read post]
Case preview: Greater Glasgow Health Board (Appellant) v Doogan and another (Respondents) (Scotland)
11 Nov 2014, 7:03 am
The House of Lords decision in R v Salford HA Ex p Janaway Lady Smith found support for her interpretation in the case of R v Salford HA Ex p Janaway [1989] 1 AC 537. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 1:35 am
In The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor v TLU & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2217 the Court of Appeal, was asked to review one aspect of Mr Justice Mitting’s decision in TLT & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB). [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 4:49 am
And indeed, Lord Justice Arnold held that "[e]ach side has adopted its position in an attempt to game the system in its favour" and generally criticizes what he considers "the dysfunctional state of the current system for determining SEP/FRAND disputes. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 12:00 am
The other members of the panel were the Master of the Rolls and ex-‘Treasury Devil‘ Lord Justice Sales. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 2:30 am
Lord Kerr highlighted that there was clearly a proximity of relationship between the respondent and Ms Michael. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 4:01 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers v Serco Ltd (t/a Serco Docklands) [2011] EWCA Civ 226 (04 March 2011) MN (Tanzania), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 193 (04 March 2011) H v City & County of Swansea & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 195 (02 March 2011) RO, R (on the application of) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Anor [2011] EWCA… [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 1:00 am
The court’s unanimous judgement was issued by Lord Reed. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 4:44 am
(ii) The Strike Out Appeal In Summers v Fairclough Homes [2012] UKSC 26, Lord Clarke held that that the court has power to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that the claim is an abuse of the process of the court at any time. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 3:13 am
Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption giving the joint lead judgments stated that the fundamental principle is that the penalty rule regulates only the contractual remedy available for the breach of primary contractual obligations, and not the fairness of those primary obligations themselves. [read post]
