Search for: "Simms v. Simms"
Results 61 - 80
of 108
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2011, 8:05 pm
Mitchell v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 7:48 pm
Simms, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377, and Galambos v. [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 4:05 am
Simms v. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 5:45 am
Co. of N.Y. v Simmes, 270 AD2d at 666). [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 7:13 am
Simms (1964), and an Equal Protection challenge to the use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. [read post]
5 Jan 2019, 8:29 am
Simms, 2017 WL 6888499 (C.D. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 9:42 am
At the other end of the spectrum, he compared this case to R v SSHD ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 131 E-F where there was an issue of legality, and government was legislating in a manner that was contrary to fundamental human rights. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm
Ultimately, as Lord Hoffmann states in R-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights (provided it squarely confronts what it is doing). [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Giles v. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 5:14 pm
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms [2000] AC 115, 126E-G. [read post]
24 May 2015, 2:09 pm
., Petitioner-Appellant, v. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 4:31 pm
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]
19 Sep 2024, 1:33 pm
James v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:21 am
SHIREY V. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 3:50 am
Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 171 (2d Cir.1998); Simms v. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:09 am
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]
24 Jun 2012, 10:48 am
The style of the case is, Barbara Misle v. [read post]
24 May 2015, 2:09 pm
., Petitioner-Appellant, v. [read post]
