Search for: "Kerr v. Kerr"
Results 881 - 900
of 2,070
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
Lord Kerr emphasised that legislating inconsistently with the Framework Decision “would effectively debar extradition” from some Member States [115]. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 5:00 am
In the case of Kerr v. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 1:14 am
The post Thoughts on <i>Vega v. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 8:00 pm
/Ltée. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 3:14 am
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeals on the limitation issue and the issue of waiving access to a lawyer, and allowed the appeal on the question of a breach of art 6 by a 4-1 majority (Kerr partly dissenting), referring that question to the High Court of Justiciary. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 2:43 pm
(Ilya Somin) Various commentators, such as co-blogger Orin Kerr and Joel Alicea argue that the individual mandate case represents a sea change in conservative attitudes to judicial review. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 8:40 am
Orin Kerr's entry on the decision here. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 10:36 am
Lopez and United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 10:14 am
The plaintiffs' law firm is one I associate with defense work: Kerr McDonald. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 9:00 pm
Lewis and Clark Rose Cuison Villazor (Hofstra), Rediscovering Oyama v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 5:45 am
And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Orin Kerr has an interesting post titled "United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 11:52 am
" Orin Kerr contends that the case is "a replay" of Arizona v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 12:55 pm
More particularly, Levinson asks why Prigg v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 6:01 pm
(Yes, V-Day!) [read post]
10 May 2012, 5:48 am
The case was heard in April by the Supreme Court Justices Lord Hope, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson and Lord Reed. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 4:29 am
On Wednesday 1 February 2012 in front of a panel of seven (L Phillips, L Walker, L Hale, L Brown, L Mance, L Kerr and L Dyson) over two days is the appeal of Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:18 am
1538: Aidan O’Neill QC submits that the role of this court is to rebalance the constitution. 1530: Aidan O’Neill QC refers to the decision in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture at page 1061 of the decision. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 1:15 am
Lord Kerr (dissenting) in a poignant judgement raised a number of issues with his fellow Lord’s reasoning. [read post]
13 May 2015, 2:29 am
Lord Kerr gave the dissenting judgment focusing on the analysing (i) whether there is a rational connection between the legislative objective and the policy; and (ii) whether the policy goes no further than is necessary to fulfill the objective. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 10:15 am
See also United States v. [read post]
