Search for: "AC v. State" Results 761 - 780 of 1,881
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Oct 2017, 3:47 pm by Giles Peaker
That settled accommodation forms such a ‘break’ was held in Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1983] 1 AC 657, as approved by the House of Lords in R v London Borough of Brent ex parte Awua [1996] 1 AC 55. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 10:12 am by NL
Lips v Older was a case presented and argued as common law negligence only, apparently without the existence of the duty being disputed.In relation to Rimmer and Targett, the Claimant argued that issue was a positive duty of the landlord not to take steps to create a dangerous state of affairs and that this remained good law despite Murphy. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 10:12 am by NL
Lips v Older was a case presented and argued as common law negligence only, apparently without the existence of the duty being disputed.In relation to Rimmer and Targett, the Claimant argued that issue was a positive duty of the landlord not to take steps to create a dangerous state of affairs and that this remained good law despite Murphy. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 9:51 am by Giles Peaker
Ms A argued that this extended to s.204 appeals, citing Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC (2003) 2 AC 430 on the kinship of s.204 appeals and judicial review. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:09 am by Dan Tench
  Lord Toulson noted the frequently quoted words of Lord Hoffmann in R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 that “Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words” and said importantly that “while Lord Hoffmann said that this presumption will apply “even” to the most general words, but I would say further that the more general the words, the harder it is likely to be to rebut the… [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The Supreme Court in Khuja v Times Newspapers [2019] AC 161 proceeded on the basis that the rule was good law. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 4:19 am by SHG
The 10th Circuit's decision in United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 4:01 am by Edith Roberts
” At the ACS Blog, Ruben Garcia assesses Monday’s argument in Epic Systems v. [read post]
28 May 2011, 10:04 am by David Hart QC
” This principle was then fleshed out in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 : …the courts and Parliament are both astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 1:08 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com] No. 07-5439 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RALPH BAZE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 10:28 am
Effient products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am by chief
The action then shifted back to the House of Lords, who in Doherty v Birmingham CC [2009] 1 AC 367 (our note is here) reaffirmed the majority approach in Kay, although they crowbarred a bit more into gateway (b). [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am by chief
The action then shifted back to the House of Lords, who in Doherty v Birmingham CC [2009] 1 AC 367 (our note is here) reaffirmed the majority approach in Kay, although they crowbarred a bit more into gateway (b). [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
In proceedings by prisoners subsequently heard in Scotland (Smith v Scott [2007] SC 345), Northern Ireland (R v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh [1997] NIQB 18) and in England and Wales (Chester v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439)  the relevant Secretary of State has expressly accepted that the ban on prisoner voting is incompatible with the ECHR. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 3:09 am by Matrix Law
Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd. [1978] AC 141 (“Buchanan”), the House of Lords decided by a 3:2 majority that the broad interpretation should be adopted. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 8:00 am
  Most states have statutorily adopted the comparative negligence doctrine.So, back to my story. [read post]