Search for: "State v. London"
Results 1021 - 1040
of 4,123
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2011, 5:09 am
In balancing these two rights, Tugendhat J had in mind the “ultimate balancing test” as referred to by Lord Steyn Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 (at para 17) and guidance from Lord Bingham in R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247 (at para 26) that interference of the ECHR right must not be stricter than necessary to achieve the state’s legitimate aim. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:37 am
R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,heard 29-30 April. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:17 am
It was a very significant case concerning allegations of genocide by one state against another. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 4:06 pm
City of New London. [read post]
11 May 2012, 2:19 am
But not everything a politician says is political (see Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin) [36] where it was judged that the then-London mayor Ken Livingstone’s comments were not expressing political opinion, but were instead to be seen as simply as the offensive abuse of a journalist). [read post]
12 May 2010, 10:21 am
Ahmed & Ors v Murphy [2010] EWHC 453 (Admin) This was an appeal to the High Court of a decision by the London Rent Assessment Committee (LRAC) that the maximum fair rent payable by Mr Murphy for the flat in Brick Lane, Spitalfields was £8.50 per week. [read post]
12 May 2010, 10:21 am
Ahmed & Ors v Murphy [2010] EWHC 453 (Admin) This was an appeal to the High Court of a decision by the London Rent Assessment Committee (LRAC) that the maximum fair rent payable by Mr Murphy for the flat in Brick Lane, Spitalfields was £8.50 per week. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 12:50 am
The shipowners issued bills of lading which were stated to incorporate the terms of the voyage charterparty. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
If that were the intention, one would have expected it to have been stated expressly. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:50 am
If that were the intention, one would have expected it to have been stated expressly. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 12:15 pm
United States and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (used with permission, www.courtartist.com) How should citizens in a republic bound by the rule of law regard the pretextual use of law by state officials? [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 4:57 pm
Master Bell stated that he “thought long and hard about whether or not to strike out Ms O’Neill’s action in the light of this jurisprudence and came close to doing so” [46]. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 3:16 pm
(Ilya Somin) New Jersey recently became the 45th state to adopt an eminent domain reform law in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:09 pm
The member states are furthermore in a position to balance conflicting rights and interests, such as the right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention with the right of property as protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 10:24 am
The case of the day is Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 9:34 am
See Narducci v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 2:50 pm
Eugene Kontorovich (Northwestern) — who has guest-blogged here several times — passes along this item about today’s United States v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 5:25 am
Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 10:16 pm
At the end ofthe post, we stated that we were not convinced by the reasoning in the judgement. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
Blue Whale Corp. v. [read post]
