Search for: "McCann v. McCann"
Results 81 - 100
of 354
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2009, 3:11 pm
Some serious reading first on American Needle, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2010, 3:09 pm
Of interest to housing lawyers are the JCHR findings and the Government response on McCann and Kay v UK, Connors and implementation of s.318 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, and Schedule 15 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in relation to the incompatibility in Morris v Westminster CC [2005] EWCA Civ 1184. [read post]
8 Aug 2010, 3:09 pm
Of interest to housing lawyers are the JCHR findings and the Government response on McCann and Kay v UK, Connors and implementation of s.318 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, and Schedule 15 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in relation to the incompatibility in Morris v Westminster CC [2005] EWCA Civ 1184. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 2:15 am
The principal issues on this appeal are as follows: Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by distinguishing and declining to follow the decision of the House of Lords in R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 787 (“McCann”) that the criminal standard of proof should be applied in proceedings in respect of an anti-social behaviour order under section 1, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”), and in failing to apply that standard… [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:19 pm
As many people have already emailed me to tell me (alright, four people, all of them lovely), McCann v United Kingdom 19009/04 was handed down today. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 10:49 am
This decision is in line with McCann v. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am
In McCann v UK, which preceded Cosic, the ECtHR not surprisingly found that the rule in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk similarly breached Article 8 because of the lack of procedural safeguards (see especially paras [53]-[54]). [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 5:47 pm
This week on the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer, we discuss the Supreme Court’s May 24 opinion in American Needle v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 12:13 am
The defence was initially based on, as the Court of Appeal puts it, ‘the hope’ that Doherty in the Lords would adopt McCann v UK. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 9:21 am
Case Name: Motley v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 12:26 pm
McCann did not diagnose Petitioner with alcohol or drug dependency. [read post]
Gross Billings for Accounting Clients Proper Measure of Liquidated Damages (Mayer Hoffman v. Barton)
20 Aug 2010, 8:02 am
--Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitOpinion Date: 8/11/10Cite: Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 6:48 am
Williams v. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 6:59 am
"That's the lesson of this new New York appellate case, McCann v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 7:57 pm
McCann (Vermont Law School) has posted “American Needle v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 3:13 pm
Dixon v UK has now reached a conclusion in the ECHR with an Order made on 21/2/12 removing the case from the lists under Art 37 (1)(c) of the Convention.This Order is the Court’s response to a unilateral declaration made by the UK government on 8/11/11 accepting that Mr Dixon had not had the benefit of a proportionality exercise in line with the principles set out in McCann, Pinnock and Powell and that the High Court’s obiter findings on… [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 3:13 pm
Dixon v UK has now reached a conclusion in the ECHR with an Order made on 21/2/12 removing the case from the lists under Art 37 (1)(c) of the Convention.This Order is the Court’s response to a unilateral declaration made by the UK government on 8/11/11 accepting that Mr Dixon had not had the benefit of a proportionality exercise in line with the principles set out in McCann, Pinnock and Powell and that the High Court’s obiter findings on… [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 9:11 am
McCann v. [read post]
11 May 2007, 5:59 am
McCann v. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 2:32 pm
Anyway, Cosic v Croatia is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights that should be of interest as both Connors and McCann are referred to as the Court reaches its conclusion that a possession order was a disproportionate interference with the Applicant's Art 8 rights, because she was not given the possibility of having the proportionality and reasonableness of it tested. [read post]
